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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,099,99 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment, and shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the building listed in the attached Table 2 list to 000.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, the testimony of 000 witnesses and the purport of all pleadings:

(a) Wage and salary income tax, value-added tax, corporate tax, etc. from May 31, 2008 to June 24, 2016;

A total of 229,696,280 won tax was delinquent.

B. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a successful bid of KRW 11,099,000 for the instant building; and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building No. 1 on September 30, 2015 in a voluntary auction procedure for the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building No. 1”).

C. On July 6, 2015, 000 buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant building”)

The building has been awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 9, 2015. 00 thereafter.

On August 4, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 21, 2015 with respect to the instant building No. 2 to the Defendant.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

00 is awarded a successful bid of the building No. 1 in this case with its own funds by lending the name of the defendant.

In the future, the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and the principal owned the building No. 2, and the title of each of the instant buildings was transferred to the Defendant. Since all of the above title trust agreements are null and void, the Defendant shall return unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of acquiring the building No. 1 in this case to 00, and shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the recovery of real name with respect to the building No. 2 in this case. However, since 00 is insolvent other than each of the instant buildings, and there is no exercise of rights against the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of acquiring the building No. 1 in this case against the Defendant as a tax claim of 000, and the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to the

B. Determination

1) The fact that the registration was based on the title trust because the person registered as the owner of the real estate is presumed to have acquired the ownership by due process and cause.

The claimant has the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008).

2) In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence No. 4 (written confirmation, Gap evidence No. 8)

In the case of a witness, 000, taking account of the witness's testimony and the whole purport of the pleading, shall be the defendant.

Inasmuch as it is recognized that the document is prepared in the name of the defendant without consent and the seal of the defendant is affixed thereto, it cannot be used as evidence because the authenticity of the document is not recognized, and it is insufficient to recognize that only 000 was lent to the defendant's name with its own funds to receive a successful bid for the building 1 of this case, or that only the registration title of the building 2 of this case was entrusted to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)