A. C purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D on August 12, 2005, and borrowed respectively from the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 on August 18, 2005, and August 22, 2005.

B. After December 5, 2006, C entered into a contract to sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at KRW 63,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 6,00,000 on the day the down payment was on the day, and KRW 50,000,000 out of the remainder 57,000,000 as a special agreement, out of the remainder 57,00,000, was first lent, and the transfer of registration was decided in the future of the Defendant.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff fully paid the price of the instant real estate to C, and C completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant real estate under Article 43745, which was received by the Daegu District Court on December 11, 2006.

On December 23, 2015, the defendant prepared a confirmation letter to the effect that he is a trustee who lends his title to the plaintiff with respect to the instant real estate.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (the defendant was forged with a sales contract of No. 3 and there is no evidence to acknowledge Gap evidence No. 4, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it)

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, in the case of so-called three-party registered title trust, the existing title trust agreement and registration following such agreement are null and void upon the lapse of the grace period stipulated under the same Act, and as a result, the real estate trusted in title is returned to the seller. As such, the seller may seek cancellation of the registration under the name of the seller, which is null and void, from the seller and the title truster. Meanwhile, as the same Act does not deny the validity of the sales contract between the seller