1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a loan claim of KRW 93,000,000 to C, and C and the Defendant are married couple.

B. The Defendant purchased the instant real estate from D on July 7, 2016 in KRW 304,500,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 31, 2016.

C. As to the instant real estate, on August 31, 2016, the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security was terminated on January 12, 2017) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 180,000,000 against the national bank, debtor, defendant, and maximum debt amount of KRW 180,000 (the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security was transferred to Steel Co., Ltd. on April 21, 2017) as the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security was terminated on January 12, 2017), ③ the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security was transferred on April 21, 2017 to the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security was transferred on April 21, 2017) with the amount of F, debtor, and maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C purchased the entire or part of the purchase price of the instant real estate, and title trust to the Defendant.

The plaintiff, who is a creditor C, shall terminate the title trust agreement between C and the defendant on behalf of C, and seek a judgment stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

A. The property acquired by one side of the couple of the relevant legal principles in his/her name during the marriage is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner.

However, in a case where it is proved that the other party or both parties have acquired the property by bearing the price of the property, the presumption of a special property shall be reversed and it shall be deemed that the other party or both parties own the property, but there was cooperation between the other party in acquiring the property.

It cannot be said that there is a reason to reverse the presumption solely with the fact that there was a mutual assistance in marriage life.

Supreme Court Decision 92Da21982 delivered on December 11, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Da21982 delivered on September 9, 1986