2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. (1) On February 11, 2011, with respect to D land owned by C (hereinafter referred to as “D land before subdivision”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to sale in the Defendant’s future. On December 5, 2011, from D land before subdivision, the registration of ownership transfer was divided into land of 197 square meters and land of 401 square meters prior to E on December 5, 201.

2) On August 5, 201, when G was owned on August 5, 201, the land of 215 square meters prior to I was divided into the land of 793 square meters prior to I, and on August 9, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the above I land (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case where the combination of E, F, and I land was called "the land in this case"). B) On March 9, 2012, the Defendant received the construction permit listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the construction permit in this case") stating that one unit of multi-household (multi-household) was newly constructed on the land in this case on the land of this case on the same day, D and 1, and multi-household housing was registered at the height of 2 meters prior to I, 444 meters, and multi-household housing was still registered on the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "construction permit in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land and intended to build multi-household houses on that ground, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to post the name of ownership registration or building permit in the name of the Plaintiff due to bad credit standing relationship. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to borrow the construction cost of the instant multi-household housing from K, a de facto spouse of the Defendant, and offered the Defendant to transfer the ownership of the instant land, the instant building permit, and the report on the construction of the instant structure.

As the Plaintiff terminated a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant building permit and the instant building report by serving a duplicate of the complaint, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to change the name of the instant building permit and the instant building report to the Plaintiff.

2) The defendant's assertion

The person who purchased the instant land for multi-household building business and paid the construction cost is K, and K has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land in the name of the defendant and received the instant building permit and the report of the installation of the instant structure in the future from the defendant. The plaintiff is only the contractor for the construction of the instant multi-household housing.

B. Determination

1) Considering the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, 6-1, 6-2, 1, 7-1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 19, 20 of the evidence Nos. 7-1, 1, 10, 19, 19, and 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, and each of the testimony and arguments of witnesses L, M, N, and C, the Plaintiff is not merely a person who has been supplied with construction works from the Defendant (or K) but is the actual owner of the instant multi-household housing. The instant building permit and the report on the installation of the instant structure are made in the name of the Defendant

A) The Plaintiff first planned and started to construct the instant multi-household housing. In order to prepare the site for the construction of the instant multi-household housing, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C on October 15, 2010 with which the Plaintiff would pay for the instant multi-household housing to C, and that the Plaintiff would purchase the instant multi-household housing to C before subdivision. The Plaintiff purchased the instant multi-household housing from G, the owner of the instant land, which was the owner of the instant land, if the Plaintiff is only the contractor of the instant newly constructed multi-household housing. It is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff led the Plaintiff to secure the site for the construction of the instant multi-household housing.

B) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff who actually purchased the instant land from C and G, and the Plaintiff’s de facto spouse L, a de facto spouse, borrowed money necessary for the construction of the instant multi-household house from K and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in the Defendant’s name as a collateral. As such, each transfer registration in the Defendant’s name as to the instant land was null and void through a three-party title trust, and accordingly, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, C, and G, as Incheon District Court 2013Kadan6581, seeking the cancellation of each transfer registration in the Defendant’s name as to the instant land, and the implementation of each transfer registration procedure under the Plaintiff’

In the above lawsuit, C and G accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on May 2, 2013. The above court deemed the actual purchaser of the land of this case as the Plaintiff. The court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on the ground that each registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant regarding the land of this case was made pursuant to a title trust agreement and thus becomes null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2013Na12891) and final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da32816) were all dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. Meanwhile, C, on May 28, 2013, upon recognizing the Plaintiff’s claim in the above Incheon District Court No. 2013Ga6581, the above court prepared a written statement (No. 1-1 of evidence) that the purchaser of the land of this case was the Defendant at the time of the division, but it did not have any ground to view that the Plaintiff’s testimony was more reliable than the Plaintiff’s statement that it was the Plaintiff’s witness at the Plaintiff’s present 2.

D) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a contracting party to the instant newly built multi-household housing. However, there is no written contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (or K), and there is no assertion or proof as to the basic contents of the instant contract, such as the construction cost, construction period, construction contents, etc. of the instant newly built multi-household housing.

E) On July 9, 2012, the Defendant testified to the effect that, “I became aware of the fact that I had been present as a witness of the Incheon District Court case 2012 Gohap423, the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff and how I became aware of the Plaintiff. The Defendant (the Plaintiff) testified that, before starting construction in the following year, I would be impossible to grant the building permit under his own name before starting construction in the following year.”

The defendant asserts that the "Housing Corporation" referred to in the above testimony is referred to as the "Housing Corporation" as separate from the multi-household housing project in this case, separately from the construction work in this case. However, at the time of the above studio construction work, it is difficult to believe that the above studio construction work is referred to as the "studio construction work" in the name of K's deceit P, and the building permit for the studio building was in the name of Q, which is the plaintiff's wife L.

F) K has been present as a witness in the above criminal trial and answer to the question, "I am Do, the witness was present in the above criminal trial, and "I am Do," both "I am Do, the E, F, I am Do, I am Do, and I am Do, the object of security".

G) Even before the construction of the instant multi-household, K and L had frequently traded money in the size of KRW 100 million under the name of borrowed money, deposit money, etc. for several years prior to the construction of the instant multi-household house. In light of the fact that even at the time when the Plaintiff performed studio construction work on May 2010, K leased the construction cost to Plaintiff or L and had had ownership in the relevant site under the name of K as a collateral, it is likely that the Plaintiff and L used the instant multi-household house construction cost that was progress around the said studio construction work from K to borrow from K, and the name of the owner of the instant land ownership transfer and the instant construction permit under the name of the Defendant, a de facto spouse of K, a de facto marriage.

H) Since the construction contract, design contract, construction supervision contract, construction report, construction permission report, etc. concerning the construction of multi-household housing in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, are documents to be naturally prepared in the process of obtaining the construction permit under the name of the defendant, it is difficult to view that the defendant prepared or possessed the above documents as the owner of the building of multi-household housing in the name of the defendant, and the witness N, a witness of the construction contract of multi-household housing in the name of the defendant, was formally prepared in the process of obtaining the construction permit by the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant testified that the construction contract of multi-household housing in the name of the defendant was made in the process of obtaining the construction permit. There is no dispute about whether the plaintiff borrowed the expenses from K or directly paid by the defendant as the owner of the building. Thus, it cannot be viewed as the owner of multi-household housing in the case of this case merely because K paid various taxes and public charges related to the construction of multi-household housing in the name of the defendant.

2) Thus, the above title trust agreement was terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on September 5, 2013 of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the title trust agreement on the instant building permit and the building report of the instant structure. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to change the name of the instant building permit and the building report of the instant structure to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judges Cho Jae-hwan

A person shall be appointed.