1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B, and B guaranteed the obligation of the loan at the time of borrowing KRW 40,000,000 from C Bank on December 8, 199.

Since then, on September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff received a payment order against B, claiming for reimbursement of indemnity amounting to KRW 43,637,227 of the Seoul Western District Court 2012 and KRW 43,637,227 as the Seoul Western District Court 2012. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Defendant, as the wife B, purchased from D, April 9, 2011, F apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 436,50,000 won for 436,50,000 won for 1 parcel of land outside Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 7, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, upon entering into a contract title trust agreement with B, did not know the existence of a title trust agreement, purchased the instant apartment and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to return unjust enrichment of KRW 200,000,000 from the purchase fund received from B to the title truster B.

The Plaintiff seeks refund of KRW 90,000,000, out of the above unjust enrichment by subrogation, in order to preserve the claim for reimbursement against B.

3. Since the real estate acquired in the name of the sole owner during the marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner of the real estate, in order for the other party to be recognized to have held a title trust as the actual owner of the real estate, he/she must prove that he/she has acquired the real estate by bearing the price for the pertinent property, and only there was his/her cooperation

The presumption cannot be reversed solely on the ground that there was a mutual aid and assistance in marital life.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du15177 delivered on December 22, 1998, etc.). Defendant and B.