Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. (1) On May 21, 2004 and August 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement as Seoul Western District Court 2010Ka25271 against B, who jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations against C and C due to the payment of the loan to financial institutions by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) which entered into a credit guarantee contract on May 21, 2004 and August 28, 2006.

(2) On October 6, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “C and B jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 746,636,412 and KRW 329,732,558, as to KRW 329,758, August 21, 2009; KRW 411,126,954, the amount of KRW 15% per annum from September 11, 2009 to July 21, 2010; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On May 24, 2004, the Defendant, who is the spouse B of the instant real estate, completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant real estate on his own.

(2) On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 540,000,000 with the above bank as the mortgagee with obtaining a loan from D Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion B purchased the real estate of this case and held title trust to the defendant. Since B is insolvent, the plaintiff, a creditor of this case, terminates the title trust agreement by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case in subrogation of B.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate to B due to the termination of title trust.

B. (1) The real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of his/her own name during the marriage pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. Therefore, in order to reverse that presumption, the other spouse is actually the real estate in question.