1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the marriage report on March 7, 1973, but around February 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began with extreme conflicts due to the Defendant’s personal debt owed to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant brought a divorce lawsuit under the Seosan Branch of Daejeon Family Court Branch of 2017Dhap1011, and the said court rendered a judgment on October 25, 2018, that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 468,00,000 as property division and the delay damages therefrom.”

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the above judgment, and the appellate court is continuing to exist as the Daejeon High Court 2018Reu1373.

B. On the other hand, on the other hand, on April 28, 2004, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on the grounds of sale on April 3, 2004.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff trusted the real estate of this case to the defendant, but terminated by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate.

3. Since real estate acquired by one spouse in the sole name of the married couple under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act shall be presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse must bear the price of the real estate in fact and prove that the real estate was acquired by himself/herself in order to possess it actually.

In determining the reversal of the presumption of special property, it does not mean that the other spouse simply reverses the presumption of special property and held a title trust on the pertinent real estate solely on the ground that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund, and it does not mean that the other spouse actually owns the relevant real estate by taking into account all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence.