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

A. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B, etc. (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga364022) and rendered a judgment that “B shall pay 18% per annum from December 9, 1999 to June 12, 2001, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” to “B shall pay 51,546,854 won and 44,383,186 won, whichever is applicable.” The judgment became final and conclusive on May 11, 2012.

B. The Defendant is the spouse of B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “third real estate”) on June 5, 2001, and sold on August 1, 2008, and purchased land listed in paragraph (2) of the above list (hereinafter “second real estate”) on December 24, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 30, 2013, and newly constructed a building listed in paragraph (3) of the above list (hereinafter “third real estate”) on that ground and resides together with B after completing the registration of ownership transfer registration on April 17, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In the first place, since the defendant is the spouse of B and did not engage in any economic activity while raising two children, the real estate No. 1 is practically acquired with the funds of B, and since the real estate No. 2, 3 is acquired with the sale price of the real estate No. 1, the real estate No. 2, 3 is ultimately nominal trust between B and the defendant. However, in this case, the title trust agreement between the defendant and B is null and void, and in this case, the defendant, the title trustee, should return the purchase price received from B as unjust enrichment, and the defendant, the title trustee, shall return the unjust enrichment to the defendant on behalf of B. 2) In the second place, the defendant sought a return of the unjust enrichment against the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus,