1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement against B, etc. with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Da251153, and rendered a judgment on January 28, 2015 that “B shall jointly and severally with C, and jointly with C, pay to the Plaintiff 740,514,320 won, and 739,960,531 won, whichever is later, 12% per annum from October 30 to November 20, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 18, 2015.

B. B: (a) sold the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment E, which was owned by the Defendant, as his wife, with each of one-half shares; (b) concluded a sales contract to purchase the same apartment F (hereinafter “instant D apartment”) in KRW 1,210,00,000 on January 17, 201; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant on February 17, 201 as one-half shares; and (d) again, on October 7, 2013, concluded a sales contract to sell the instant DNA apartment in KRW 980,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the buyer on November 8, 2013.

C. The Defendant concluded a sales contract to purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant G apartment”) in the purchase price of KRW 519,00,000 on October 7, 2013, which is the same as the date of the instant apartment sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s sole name on December 12, 2013.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s apartment complex in this case, which was jointly owned by the Defendant 1/2 as the sales price, was acquired as the sales price for the instant apartment complex, which was jointly owned by the Defendant 1/2 with the Defendant, and thus, B and the Defendant shared each share of 1/2, but it appears that B owned a title trust to the Defendant as much as their co-ownership. The seller of the instant apartment in this case was unaware of the existence of the above title trust agreement at

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is the creditor of B, is about the G apartment in this case by subrogation.