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

(A) On February 2, 200, the plaintiff and the defendant living together, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case on behalf of the defendant, which the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case in title trust to the defendant.

The title trust concerning the real estate of this case is terminated through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the real estate of this case to the plaintiff due to the termination of the title trust.

3. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the Defendant concluded a sale contract on the instant real estate on behalf of the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the title trust agreement is null and void (Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name). As such, Article 8 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name stipulates that, in exceptional cases, a title trust agreement in the name of a clan, spouse

However, the Defendant is not a legal spouse of the Plaintiff, but does not include a spouse in a de facto marital relationship with the spouse under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du35 delivered on May 14, 199), and this does not constitute exceptional cases prescribed by the above provision.

separate from whether a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price is possible, the Defendant cannot seek implementation of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership of the instant real estate due to the cancellation of a title trust agreement or the return of unjust enrichment.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.