2. Determination

A. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning each of the above parts is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

⑵ 피고의 주장에 대한 판단 ㈎ 명의신탁 피고는, 피고가 모친인 F과 명의신탁 약정을 하고 그 약정에 의하여 F 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 것이어서, F 명의의 소유권이전등기는 부동산실명법에 의하여 무효이고, 이 사건 점포는 피고의 소유이며, F의 사망 후에 원고 A이 우연히 이 사건 점포의 등기권리증을 소지하고 있다는 이유로 피고에게 이 사건 합의서를 작성하면 등기권리증을 주겠다고 하여 이 사건 합의서를 작성하게 된 것일 뿐 원고들과 피고 사이에 이 사건 점포에 관하여 어떠한 합의가 있었던 것은 아니라는 취지로 주장한다.

First, we examine whether there was a title trust agreement on the instant store between the Defendant and F.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 26, and Eul witness of the first instance court, concerning the store of this case, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on Jan. 15, 1987, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of F on April 30, 201 was completed on April 18, 200, and the defendant manages the store of this case upon the death of F, and the fact that the defendant holds the registration right of the store of this case after the execution of the agreement of this case.

However, the defendant did not properly prove that the defendant had paid the price at the time of initial acquisition of the store of this case, and the fact that the F obtained profits such as rent after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in F's name on the store of this case does not dispute the defendant.