1. Defendant C has caused the sale and purchase of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to D as of June 9, 2010.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2011, E filed a lawsuit against D to claim the purchase price of goods (the Busan District Court Decision 201Da66746) and sentenced D to pay 58,314,520 won and damages for delay. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The plaintiff from E

A. On January 2, 2013, upon the transfer of claims based on the judgment entered in the port, Busan District Court granted the succeeding execution clause from the Busan District Court, and the said succeeding execution clause was served to D on January 4, 2013.

C. On October 12, 2011, the Ulsan District Court received on September 12, 201, No. 99061 on the instant real estate owned by Defendant C, for which the registration of ownership transfer was made under Defendant B’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant C: The fact that no dispute is raised against Defendant B; Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 6, and 7-1 through 4; the purport of the pleading

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Although Defendant C and D entered into a sales contract for the instant real estate, upon D’s request, the registration of ownership transfer was made at the time of transfer to Defendant C, which constitutes a registration under a three-party title trust, and thus, the title trust agreement and the registration of ownership transfer made in Defendant B is null and void.

Accordingly, in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate against D as the creditor against D, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate against D and C by subrogationing D and Defendant C in sequence.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). We examine the evidence No. 15, and D’s records.