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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. In purchasing from D the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 101 Dong 905 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to have the name of the purchaser and the owner on the registry under the sales contract as the Defendant’s name.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). (b)

In accordance with the agreement of this case, on July 16, 2009, the Defendant entered into a sales contract to substitute the buyer as the Defendant and the buyer as the Defendant and the buyer as the purchase price amount of KRW 400 million, and to substitute the lease deposit amount of KRW 180 million,00,000,000, which is the lessee of the apartment of this case, to succeed to the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 180,000,000.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to D with the purchase price of the instant real estate, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 15, 2009 according to the above sales contract.

On February 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with F as a creditor on the instant real estate; and (b) completed the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with G as a creditor on May 3, 2012; (c) upon the application of F, on August 22, 2012, H, a former husband of the Plaintiff, paid the instant real estate at the auction and acquired ownership by paying the proceeds therefrom.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-7's entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 concluded a contract title trust agreement under which the Plaintiff shall fully bear the purchase price of the instant real estate, and the purchaser of the sales contract and the owner on the register are the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 220 million to the seller.

However, this case’s title trust agreement is null and void in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Thus, without any legal ground, the Defendant KRW 220 million paid by the Plaintiff.