2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, among the above land, F 694 square meters (210 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) were land transaction permission area, and the Plaintiff, Jeju-do, was unable to obtain land transaction permission, and requested the Defendants to lend the name of the Defendants. On October 11, 2007, the Defendants consented and completed the registration of ownership transfer by directly making the Defendants a co-ownership share of 1/2 with respect to the instant land from D.

Since the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is null and void pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the Defendants are obligated to return each of the above KRW 168 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in order to acquire the instant land (=210 square x 8 million), to the unjust enrichment, according to their respective co-ownership shares.

Judgment

According to the Real Estate Real Name Act, in the case of a so-called three-party registered title trust, a title trust agreement and registration based thereon are null and void, and as a result, the real estate held in title return to the seller’s ownership, the seller may seek cancellation of the registration in his/her name invalid. Meanwhile, the Real Estate Real Name Act still remains valid after the expiration of the grace period since the seller and the title truster did not have any provision denying the validity of the sales contract between the seller and the title truster. As such, the title truster may file a claim for cancellation of the registration in his/her name, in subrogation of the seller to preserve the right to claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da61654 delivered on March 15, 2002). Accordingly, registration is made under the name of the title trustee pursuant to a three-party title trust agreement.