1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the next order of payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

The court's explanation of this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 3-B.

In addition to the amendment of Paragraph 2, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts of Change

B. In a case where the registration of transfer of the trusted real estate in the name of a third party is completed due to voluntary disposal by the title trustee, compulsory expropriation, consultation on public land acquisition, etc. after the grace period prescribed by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) has expired for the determination of the cause of a claim for the return of unjust enrichment, the third party acquisitor has the duty to acquire the ownership (Article 4(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act), and thereby, the seller’s obligation to transfer the ownership to the title truster is impossible, and as a result, the title truster suffers loss of the right to transfer the ownership of the trusted real estate, while the title trustee gains profit from the acquisition of the proceeds of sale of the trusted real estate or compensation, and the title trustee is obligated to return such profit to the title truster with unjust enrichment

In addition, this legal principle can be equally applied to a third party title trust agreement after the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act and the completion of its registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da207235 Decided September 10, 2015) K land, M land was acquired through consultation at the time of strike, and G land and H land were sold to O and P and the registration of ownership transfer was completed.

As a result, D/F's obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff, who is the seller of each of the above lands, became impossible to perform.

As a result, the Plaintiffs, who are the title truster, suffered loss of the right to transfer the ownership of each of the above lands, while the Defendant, who is the title trustee, was 178,92,00 won of compensation for the acquisition through consultation.