2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for indemnity against B, and received an order to pay the amount of interest in arrears for KRW 272,359,288 from the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) to “272,359,288 won and the amount of interest in arrears for KRW 272,359,250, whichever became final and conclusive on July 13, 2013.

B. The defendant, who is the spouse B, is the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case").

(1) On April 26, 201, the Daegu District Court completed registration of initial ownership on April 26, 201 as the receipt No. 11326 of the Daegu District Court’s Ansan Branch. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence No. 1, and No. 2,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant building was owned by B as it was newly constructed by bearing the price thereof. Since it was a title trust to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of indemnity against B, has cancelled the title trust agreement by delivering a copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant in subrogation of B, who is insolvent, as a creditor of indemnity against B, and sought that B implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration.

B. The Defendant’s instant building was financed by the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant and newly built KRW 400 million from the Co., Ltd., the Defendant borrowed and newly built the instant building. Since the instant building registered its business in the name of the Defendant and operates the gas charging station, the instant building is owned by the Defendant, and is not nominal trust from B.

3. Determination

A. The real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of a single spouse during marriage under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. Thus, in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse must bear the price of the real estate in question and prove that the real estate was acquired in order to actually own the real estate. In this case, in determining the reversal of the presumption of special property, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund is a condition.