A. On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a land of 1361 square meters in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and obtained permission for a land transaction contract as to the sale and purchase of the instant land (the Plaintiff and the buyer D) on January 28, 2014.

B. On August 30, 2010, the instant land: E, the spouse of D, was the debtor, and the right to collateral security was created with a maximum debt amount of KRW 210 million on August 30, 2010; and subsequently, on February 21, 2014, the “the right to collateral security below the maximum debt amount of KRW 78 million” is each of the instant collective security rights.

This was established.

C. The Plaintiff is “the instant sales contract to the Defendant on August 10, 2014.”

The registration of transfer of ownership of the land of this case is called "registration of transfer of ownership of this case".

3) The grounds for recognition have been satisfied. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim is null and void since the ownership transfer registration of this case was completed pursuant to the title trust agreement. As such, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation registration.

Since a person who has registered as an owner of a real estate to determine whether a title trust agreement exists, is presumed to have acquired ownership by lawful procedures and causes, the fact that such registration was based on a title trust bears the burden of proving that it was based on the title trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). Whether a title trust agreement was made on any land can be determined by comprehensively examining and determining the circumstances in which a title trust agreement was registered in the future, the scale and management status of the land, the receipt and disbursement relationship of the proceeds of the land, the payment relationship of taxes and public charges, the relationship between the payment of taxes and public charges

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686 delivered on September 8, 1998). Each of the above evidence and evidence set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including serial number) are the purport of the whole pleadings.