1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 1, 1977, the Defendant (name D before the opening of the name, 1971 birth) on the basis of the facts on the basis of the judgment of the court below, as to the land No. 3870.7 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land No. 1 of this case”) in Yong-gun,

1. 21. The registration of transfer of ownership based on sale has been completed, and the same year on February 2, 1998 with respect to the land of 1283m2 (hereinafter referred to as “second land”) in Yong-Namnam-gun, Youngnam-gun;

1.8. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer by sale.

Then, the F on January 14, 2009 for the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case")

1.7. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer by reason of sale. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant again completed the registration of ownership transfer by reason of sale.

9.24. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer by sale.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1, 2, and Gap 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was purchased by the Plaintiff and entered into a contract under the contract title trust agreement with the Defendant, who is the purchaser, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

On the other hand, the transfer of F to F and the transfer of the defendant's transfer to F are made in order to avoid compulsory execution against the defendant and the transfer of the defendant's transfer to F in the future of the defendant's Form F, which is the cause of each contract again to be returned to the defendant by pretending the sale to the defendant.

However, since the above contract title trust agreement is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return the land itself and the purchase price of the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s age was over five to six years of age at the time of the transfer of the land No. 1, and according to the Plaintiff’s entry from Gap to five (including each number), it is recognized that on October 21, 2013, when the transfer of the instant land from F to the Defendant’s name was registered under the name of F, the purchase price for pretending to purchase and sell was deposited from the Plaintiff’s account and again deposited into the Plaintiff’s account.

However, B 2-1, 2, 4-1 to 4-1.