1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. A regional housing association (hereinafter “instant association”) had promoted a construction project of an apartment complex of which the number of households 1,530 households and the total floor area is 235,174 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu. Around 2015, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the instant association to be provided with one household (hereinafter “instant building”) among the apartment buildings being constructed between the instant association and the association (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. Meanwhile, in relation to the supply of the instant building portion, the Plaintiff entered into a contract title trust agreement with the Defendant to purchase the instant building portion in the name of the Defendant, because it did not meet the qualification for membership required by the instant association.

C. From October 2015 to August 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 68,30,000 to the Defendant three times as the sale price for the instant building portion.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, result of the plaintiff himself examination of the first instance court, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The title trust agreement on the instant building portion concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the instant association, a seller, was aware of the existence of the above title trust agreement, and even if the ownership transfer registration for the instant part of the building was completed in the Defendant, a trustee, the Defendant is in the position to acquire full ownership for the instant part of the building.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is liable to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, the title truster, on the amount equivalent to the sale price received from the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90432 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). B.

Since the plaintiff and the defendant have a de facto marital relationship for a long time, the plaintiff is returned.