A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in public works, automobile parts business, etc. with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a registered titleholder of land and building D and E (hereinafter “instant factory”) in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si.

B. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant factory from F, the Defendant’s agent, for KRW 800 million, the price for the instant factory, and at the time, “1. On the surface packaging after removing the tank in the factory;

2. The inner floor shall be packed before the boundary points of trees inside the factory after cleaning wastes;

"" has entered into a special agreement.

The term "the instant contract", "the instant special agreement", etc.

(C) The Plaintiff completed the payment under the instant contract, and completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the instant factory under its name on July 31, 2015. D. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to implement the instant special agreement, and the Defendant did not comply therewith, and treated part of the instant plant at its own expense, and filed the instant lawsuit at the Plaintiff’s own expense. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap 1-12 evidence (including each number, Eul 1-2 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts in determining the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to perform the terms of the instant special agreement with the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is merely a title trustee 1, asserts that the actual owner or actual user of the instant plant is F, and that F entered into the instant special agreement, and that the Plaintiff must file a claim with F, and that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim merely with F’s title trustee.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be admitted to the above assertion, and even if the defendant is merely a title trustee, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who was unaware of the title trust relationship.