1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The fact that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on September 4, 2001 on June 17, 1997 with respect to D apartment 125 Dong 104 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is based on the sale on June 17, 1997 does not conflict between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s own expense and at his own expense (hereinafter “cooperative”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not express their intent to sell the instant apartment in lots, but did not object to the Plaintiff, on the ground that they did not express title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even though they knew that the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, they did not object to the Plaintiff, and thus, an implied title trust agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a new sale agreement under the name of the Defendant after consultation with the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a new sale agreement under the name of the Defendant; and (c) there was no express title trust agreement on the instant apartment.

3) The implied title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a so-called intermediate omission title trust, and both title trust agreements and changes in real rights are null and void in accordance with the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant by subrogation of the Plaintiff, in order to compensate for the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff cannot recover ownership in the form of ownership transfer

5. Therefore, as stated in the purport of the claim, the defendant is from August 13, 1999 to the date of payment of 195,418,845 won for purchase of the apartment of this case and its remainder.