1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is by the main text of

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. D held the title trust of the instant real estate in the form of a contract title trust. Even if the above title trust agreement is null and void, as long as the seller acted in good faith, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant is valid. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return KRW 135,320,100, which is equivalent to the down payment of the purchase price,

B. If a title trust agreement with the defendant is valid as a title trust between husband and wife, the plaintiffs already terminated the title trust by exercising the subrogation right as a creditor D, and the defendant is obligated to transfer ownership to D accordingly, but the above obligation to transfer ownership was not fulfilled due to the successful auction procedure and the successful bid for each apartment of this case, so the defendant is obligated to return the above amount equivalent to the down payment to D with unjust enrichment.

C. Therefore, the defendant, as a creditor against D, has the obligation to pay the above amount within the scope of the plaintiffs' claims in subrogation of the above D's claims.

3. Determination

A. First, it is difficult to conclude that the title trust agreement between D and the defendant is null and void as to the plaintiffs' claim of the above 2-A, and D and the defendant are married with their husband and wife. In addition, as seen earlier, the defendant was liable to transfer ownership to D by cancelling the title trust on behalf of the plaintiffs in subrogation of D, and the defendant was liable to transfer ownership. The plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price by acquiring the ownership of each apartment of this case.

B. Next, with respect to the plaintiffs' above 2-B argument.