1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are married couple who reported marriage on January 22, 2013.

B. On June 24, 2013, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the seller prepared a sales contract stating that C, the buyer, the Defendant, and the sales price of KRW 653,00,000,000, among which KRW 300,000,000, would substitute the buyer for the buyer’s acceptance of the obligation to return the lease deposit against D for the lessee of the instant real estate, and on the same day, the transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed in the Defendant’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The fact that the sales contract on the instant real estate was concluded under the name of the Defendant and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is based on the title trust agreement between the Defendant, and the said title trust agreement is an agreement between husband and wife on title trust, which is the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual

(2) Article 8 of the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is valid. Since the Plaintiff terminated the title trust through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant received KRW 353,00,000 from the Plaintiff for the acquisition of the instant real estate, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on title trust as asserted by the Plaintiff.

There is a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Even if the Plaintiff made a title trust for the purpose of evading tax, the Plaintiff cannot assert that the title trust is valid against the Defendant.

B. In order to reverse the presumption, since the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her sole name during marriage under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner.