All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment, such as Paragraph 2, to the plaintiffs' assertion, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

D, the title truster, who claimed the exercise of the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund under the invalidation of the additional judgment title trust agreement, lent the title of Defendant E, a title trustee, to purchase the instant real estate from L around 2002. Since L did not know about the title trust agreement, D has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 270,000,000 for purchase price against Defendant E.

The Plaintiffs seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund against Defendant E in subrogation of insolvent D as a creditor against D.

Judgment

D There is no evidence to prove that L was unaware of the title trust agreement at the time when L lent the name of Defendant E and purchased the instant real estate from L.

Even if L did not know about the title trust agreement, according to the purport of Gap evidence 7-17 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that Eul sold the instant real estate to Defendant F, and arranged the obligation and obligation of the instant real estate between Defendant E, and thus, it is reasonable to view that D’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund against Defendant E was extinguished by the post settlement between Defendant E and D.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted.

D’s assertion that the exercise of the right to refund KRW 100,000,000, out of the purchase price against Defendant E, was made by Defendant E, that the exercise of the right to refund KRW 100,000,000, out of the real estate purchase price received from Defendant F, donated to Defendant E.

However, this constitutes a fraudulent act, D has a claim for return of KRW 100,000,00 against Defendant E.

The plaintiffs are creditors of D, who are insolvent.