1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff holds the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 97,763,90 against C.

On February 13, 2015, the Defendant purchased from the F adodo 3286 square meters from the Republic of Korea on the same day, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant purchased from G ado 1909 square meters of E forest in Bocheon-si and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 2013.

B. At the time of each sales contract for the primary claim, the above C donated each purchase price to the Defendant, which constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is a malicious beneficiary in light of the status relationship with C.

Therefore, the plaintiff should cancel each of the above gift contracts within the limit of the amount of preserved claims of the plaintiff, and claim compensation for its equivalent value as restitution.

C. At the time of each contract for preliminary claim, the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with C. Accordingly, the Defendant purchased each of the above real estate from a bona fide seller with the funds of the actual purchaser C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the title trust agreement between the Defendant and C is null and void, while each

Therefore, the defendant, who is the title trustee, is obligated to return the purchase price equivalent to C in unjust enrichment. Therefore, the plaintiff is the creditor of C, who is the creditor of C, claiming the return of the purchase price to the defendant by subrogation.

2. The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff to determine the primary claim is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s claim against C exists at the time of each gift agreement claiming that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if it is assumed that there exists a claim against the Plaintiff as to the Plaintiff C, C donated each purchase price to the Defendant.

There is no evidence to deem that C was in excess of the obligation at the time.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. Preliminary claim.