1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) the annex drawing of the first floor constructed on the Busan Dong-gu C and D ground;

1. The plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 20, 199 with receipt No. 27210 on May 20, 199, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 4 in the separate sheet) owned by E, F, G, and H4 in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser J’s measurement, appraisal, and supplementation by Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and appraiser I, the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer on April 20, 199 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 4 in the separate sheet was owned by E, and the real estate listed in paragraph 5 was F, G, and H owned by F, H; hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The part in the port of entry (hereinafter referred to as “the part in Defendant possession”) may be recognized, and the monthly rent from April 24, 2013 to April 23, 2014 from April 24, 2013 to April 23, 2014, the monthly rent of KRW 183,600, and the monthly rent from the following day to March 31, 2015, respectively, may be recognized as constituting 182,600.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, to occupy the part of the Defendant’s possession among the instant real estate, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 182,60 per month from April 25, 2013 to April 24, 2014, and from the next day to the above order of surrender.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim against the defendant's main claim

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from four persons, including E, etc. on April 20, 199, and borrowed KRW 76 million, which is a part of the purchase fund from the Plaintiff, and the registration name was concluded in order to secure the purchase fund. As such, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name pursuant to the title trust agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that he is the owner of the real estate of this case is without merit.