1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of trial in this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for delivery of a building in its entirety and dismissed the loan claim in part.

In this regard, since only the plaintiff appealed against the part of the claim for the delivery of a building and added a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in this court, the scope of this court is limited to the claim for the delivery

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments, and thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. Determination 1 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff constitutes the owner of the instant building, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff constitutes the owner of the instant building since the ownership transfer registration on the instant building that was completed by the trustee D was based on the Defendant or his/her will, and thus, constitutes the owner of the instant building. The testimony by the witness D alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the authority to dispose of the instant real estate at the time of the said transfer registration, or that the said registration of ownership transfer was completed according to his/her disposal intent, and there is no other evidence to support otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the assertion regarding illegal consideration is without merit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of D, which was completed pursuant to the instant title trust agreement, for the purpose of evading compulsory execution (hereinafter “Real Estate Name Act”).

Since C or E, a title truster of D, lost ownership of the instant building, constitutes illegal consideration made in violation of the foregoing, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s objection to whom the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building was transferred from D.