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

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are married, and the plaintiff is the non-party C's fifth married, and the defendant is the third married.

C's children are Won, the defendant as well as Do, the first father, the second father, E, and the fourth father.

B. The transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was completed on April 29, 2005 with respect to the apartment of this case, which was originally owned by G, on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff did not have resided in the instant apartment, and lived with her husband and wife after 2009, and returned to the Republic of Korea around 2017.

The apartment of this case was used by Nonparty H for the purpose of a child care center until 2012, and after the lease period expires, C, Defendant, and F reside.

C was killed on July 5, 2017, and the defendant and F still reside in the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the argument on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is that of the apartment that C purchased from G and donated to the Plaintiff, and whose ownership on the register is transferred directly from G by the method of intermediate omission registration.

However, the defendant without any title occupies the above apartment without permission, and the defendant has a duty to deliver the above apartment to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of disturbance and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the date of the above delivery.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that C purchased from G and entrusted only the name of ownership on the register to the Plaintiff by the so-called three-party registered title trust.

Therefore, the registration of the Plaintiff’s name is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”). Therefore, the Plaintiff has no authority to seek delivery against the Defendant.

3. Judgment on the issues