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

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant (formerly named: C) married on July 19, 1995, and married three children (the birth, 1995, 196, and 196) under the chain.

B. The apartment of this case was sold in lots in 1997 and was used as a residential area after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on December 31, 1998, and the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 16, 199 to the defendant on September 15, 199.

C. In 199 and 2000, the Defendant obtained a loan as security for the apartment of this case, and created a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 24 million to the bank respectively.

The plaintiff and the defendant married on May 2, 2005. After the divorce, the defendant moved out of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff brought up all three children at this place, and the plaintiff, first and third children reside in the apartment of this case.

E. The defendant has not demanded the plaintiff to deliver the apartment of this case so far.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the instant apartment, which is the cause of the claim, was the Plaintiff’s title trust to the Defendant, the title trust contract is terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the transfer of registration is sought.

3. Determination

A. The real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and the person who asserts that he/she had registered by the trust of another person shall be liable to prove the title trust fact.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da215070, Jun. 19, 2017). (B)

The fact that the Plaintiff had the registration certificate of the apartment of this case, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the interest on the secured loan against the apartment of this case from December 2007 does not conflict between the parties, or recognized by the entry of the evidence No. 8, and the Plaintiff even after divorce.