1. Defendant B shall have the Suwon District Court known to Defendant C with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty D is the Plaintiff’s words, and Defendant B is the grandchildren of Nonparty D.

B. On July 7, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant C to purchase KRW 39,000,000 with respect to the former E building 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) during Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid all the sales amount (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. As to the building of this case, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was completed on September 16, 200 by the Suwon District Court Anyang Branch of the Suwon District Court, No. 78605, Sept. 19, 200, and the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon, which was made on September 16, 2002, with the registration office No. 82428, Sept. 29, 200, as the registration office No. 82428, Sept. 29, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name Act, in the case of so-called three-party registered title trust, the existing title trust agreement and the registration thereof are invalidated after the lapse of the grace period stipulated under the same Act, and as a result, the real estate trusted in title is returned to the seller’s ownership. As such, the seller is entitled to seek cancellation of the registration under his/her name, which is null and void. Meanwhile, the sales contract between the seller and the title truster still remains valid even after the lapse of the grace period since the seller and the title truster did not have any provision denying the validity of the sales contract between the seller and the title truster. As such, the title truster may file a claim for the registration

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da61654 Delivered on March 15, 2002).

Judgment

1. The case.