2...

On March 3, 2010, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased D was completed on March 3, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The network D died on June 18, 2016, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was completed due to the inheritance due to the agreement division on the real estate in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and the gist of the plaintiff's argument by the parties concerned in the whole pleadings, despite the plaintiff's legitimate ownership of the real estate of this case, the defendant occupies the real estate of this case without legitimate title. Thus, the defendant has a duty to deliver the

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the real estate in this case was purchased by the network D, but the real estate in this case was actually purchased by the Defendant, and the Defendant was nominal trust with the network D in a de facto marital relationship. Since C, the seller, was well aware of these circumstances, the registration of transfer of ownership to the network D is null and void.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff, the deceased D’s heir, did not have a legitimate ownership, the Plaintiff cannot seek the delivery of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

Since a title trust agreement between the Defendant and the network D is null and void, the Plaintiff, the heir of the network D, is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 38 million, which the Defendant provided to the network D, as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

Since a person registered as an owner of a real estate is presumed to have acquired the ownership through legitimate procedures and causes, the fact that the registration is based on the title trust has the burden of proof for the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). A without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 8, 9 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 4, 5, and 6 are acknowledged as being comprehensively considered the whole of the statements and arguments.