1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

On July 30, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from C in the purchase price of KRW 100 million.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 30, 2019 on each of the instant real property, on the grounds of sale and purchase on July 30, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is without dispute, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly, on the condition that the Defendant reported the marriage with the Plaintiff and maintained the marital relationship.

In doing so, the defendant violated the above conditions, and the plaintiff revoked the gift contract with the defendant on the real estate of this case.

Therefore, with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought to return 1/2 shares of the instant real estate registered under the name of the Defendant as unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff also mentioned “the termination of a trust in the name due to the de facto marriage dissolution” in the “written complaint” or “written application for change of the purport and cause of the claim,” but the grounds for registration stated in the primary purport of the claim are “return of benefit in the name,” and the termination of the trust in the name is not deemed as the primary claim.

Preliminaryly seeking the refund of unfair profits equivalent to the purchase price for the shares of 1/2 in the name of the defendant among the real estate in this case.

However, with respect to the primary claim of the Plaintiff, the Health Team and the instant real estate were owned by the Plaintiff from the beginning, or the Plaintiff donated 1/2 shares of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

There is no evidence to view that, even if the Plaintiff had cancelled a certain gift contract with the Defendant, it cannot be claimed as unfair benefit for the 1/2 share of the instant real estate itself.

B. A. The Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is against the Defendant.