1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Party’s argument

A. The Plaintiff is the title truster and the Defendant of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), who is the title truster and the Defendant of the instant land, and under the premise that the Plaintiff purchased 1/200 million and KRW 200 million of the instant land from C, the Plaintiff filed for the registration of transfer of the said shares against the Defendant.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since C sold the instant land to D, it is unreasonable to claim the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure against the defendant who is merely the title trustee on the ground that C entered into a sales contract with C.

Judgment

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the title truster C and the Defendant, the title trustee, concluded the so-called contract title trust agreement, and the Defendant, the title trustee, was not aware of the existence of a title trust agreement with the owner E, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land pursuant to the said contract.

B. However, it is reasonable to view that C’s above title trust agreement between the Defendant is null and void.

(Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name stipulates that the title trust agreement under the name of a clan, spouse, and religious organization is not null and void exceptionally. However, there is no particular assertion or proof by the Plaintiff as to whether this case constitutes exceptional cases prescribed by the above provision, and there is no particular circumstance that it falls under such exceptional cases.

C. Ultimately, on the premise of the title trust agreement between C and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the registration of transfer directly to the Defendant is without merit without examining the Plaintiff’s claim.

C It is separate from whether a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price is possible.