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

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 17, 2006 with respect to the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) on which the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared in one-half shares, respectively.

B. On February 5, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) concluded conciliation on the instant case (principal lawsuit) and (b) 2016 Down 10133, 2017 Down 10351, and divorced; and (c) details of the conciliation are as follows.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall not claim monetary in any name, such as consolation money and division of property, with respect to the divorce of this case, in addition to those stipulated above against the other party in the future.

3. The plaintiff's remaining principal claim shall be waived, and the defendant shall waive the remaining principal claim.

4. The costs of lawsuit and mediation shall be borne by each party concerned by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant had title trust of 1/2 of the loan of this case against the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff sought implementation of the equity transfer registration procedure based on the termination of title trust.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the above claim is unlawful against the res judicata effect of the above conciliation protocol, even though the plaintiff and the defendant did not claim monetary under any pretext, such as consolation money and division of property, in addition to the conciliation clause in the divorce conciliation case between the plaintiff and the defendant.

C. “Res judicata” as stipulated in Articles 216 and 218 of the Civil Procedure Act does not allow a subsequent suit that is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit that has res judicata. At the same time, in a case where, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as that of the subject matter of a prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject