1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 303,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 1, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

A. Indication of Claim: The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant the amount of KRW 300 million on September 9, 2016, and KRW 300 million on January 2, 2017, respectively, to the extent that the Plaintiff sought the payment of the loan and the damages for delay.

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is the Plaintiff’s creditor of the loan against Defendant B, and Defendant B completed each registration of ownership transfer as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, this is a registration of invalidation under a title trust agreement, and thus ought to be cancelled.

Defendant B, as insolvent, has no particular property other than the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of ownership transfer registration against Defendant C by subrogation of Defendant B.

(2) The registration of transfer of ownership in this case by Defendant C is not based on the title trust agreement, but is not based on the title trust agreement, and since Defendant C and her husband have lent money to Defendant B and received money as payment in kind, it has been completed lawfully.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3-1 through No. 4, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant case on March 16, 2015 to Defendant C on March 13, 2015.

As to whether the registration of transfer of ownership in this case is null and void as a title trust, the registration of real estate is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally. Although the registrant claims that the registration titleholder acquired the registration name for reasons different from those stated in the register, the presumption of registration itself cannot be said to be broken, even if such assertion is not acknowledged.