A. Defendant B is the original state branch of the Chuncheon District Court to Defendant C.

A. On June 8, 2002, the Plaintiff and Defendant B purchased from Defendant C the purchase price of KRW 1,348 square meters in total from KRW 1.20 million.

B. Subsequent, as to the instant real estate, the Disposition No. 1 was ordered in Defendant B’s name.

The registration of ownership transfer as stated in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") was completed.

(Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate from Defendant C, and entrusted the title of the said shares to Defendant B, and thus, the title trust agreement on the said shares and the ownership transfer registration of the instant case resulting therefrom are null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

Therefore, Defendant B, the title trustee, is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of this case to Defendant C, the seller, and Defendant C, the buyer, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on sale as of June 8, 2002 with respect to shares of 1/2 of the instant real estate. The Plaintiff may seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case by subrogation of Defendant C in order to preserve the right to claim the above share transfer registration against Defendant C.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion and its determination, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 120,000,000, and paid KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff for the purchase price of KRW 1/20,000,000, and it is insufficient to prove whether the Plaintiff actually purchased the said real estate in KRW 120,000,00,000

However, the above argument by Defendant B is merely an internal settlement of money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and it does not constitute a ground to prevent the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case. Thus, the above argument by Defendant B is concerned.