1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the real estate that the Plaintiff purchased in lots under subparagraph 101 of the first unit of the Dlue House (hereinafter “instant tenement house”) located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

On September 22, 1989, the Defendant, in collusion with F on September 2, 1989, filed a lawsuit against F, etc. to cancel the ownership transfer registration against a third party, i.e., the entire apartment house in this case, which exceeds ownership of the third party, the Incheon District Court 89Gahap1263, and claimed that No. 101 of the instant apartment house was sold by the Defendant, and was awarded a favorable judgment in the Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, 91Na56471, and completed the registration of transfer in the name of the Defendant with respect to No. 101 of the instant apartment house based on the above judgment.

On November 26, 2003, the Defendant concluded a share transfer registration with respect to No. 101 of the instant tenement house. However, the Defendant asserted that the instant apartment house No. 101 was owned by the Plaintiff, and held a title trust with the Plaintiff, even though it was owned by the Plaintiff.

As above, the Defendant intended to acquire the instant tenement house No. 101 and additional 2 households in conspiracy, and as a party who made the entire instant tenement house to be acquired by deception to a third party, the Plaintiff was aware of such tort, leaving the Plaintiff liable after deducting butts from liability, leaving the Plaintiff et al., and going beyond the responsibility to the owners of the Plaintiff et al., and the situation in which the lawsuit is handled is being

Accordingly, the Plaintiff spent registration expenses, litigation expenses, etc. while handling a substitute suit, including various lawsuits related to the instant apartment house, including Seoul High Court case No. 91Na56471, and the expenses incurred from May 2, 2005 to May 31, 2012 (the grounds for appeal include the period specified as above, but the written complaint states that the period from July 2005 to July 2015) are KRW 841,038,199 in total.

This is because it was disbursed or subrogated for the defendant.