1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for a loan claim (No. 2015dahap11082) and rendered a judgment from the above court on December 14, 2016 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 487,00,000 and 15% per annum from October 20, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment was finalized on January 5, 2017.

B. The registration of ownership preservation was completed on December 1, 2009 in relation to D Apartment No. 20 E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and F and G Co., Ltd. on January 22, 2007, and on January 1, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 1, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the contract title trust agreement entered into with the Defendant, C, the title trustee, entered into a sales contract on the instant apartment between the seller and the seller who was unaware of the fact that the title trust agreement was concluded, and accordingly, completed the registration of title transfer on the instant apartment under the name of the Defendant, the trustee.

In this case, notwithstanding the invalidity of the above contract title trust agreement, the Defendant, the title trustee, acquired the complete ownership of the apartment of this case, but the title truster C bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay C’s obligee, who subrogated C, the insolvent, to the Plaintiff KRW 275,780,000, equivalent to the purchase fund of the apartment in this case, and damages for delay.

3. Since it is presumed that a person registered as an owner of the judgment real estate acquired ownership through due process and cause, the fact that the registration was based on the title trust has the burden of proof to the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883 Decided April 24, 2008). This case’s case.