1. The part of the claim for confirmation of ownership among the counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Basic Facts

A. The representative C is the defendant's female life.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 (including the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 24, 2008 under the name of the Plaintiff on January 22, 2008. On the same day, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount KRW 400,000,000 in the name of the Defendant of the mortgagee was completed.

C. On December 12, 201, registration of ownership preservation was completed in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to 5 real estate. D.

With respect to the real estate Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”), the registration of creation of the right to collateral security was completed on December 12, 201 under the name of the husband of the mortgagee D (C) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Despite the absence of the secured obligation of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same), the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security with a view to preventing the Plaintiff’s members or C from claiming ownership of the real estate 1 through 4.

Since such a contract to establish a collateral security is invalid as a false declaration of intention, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the collateral security in this case.

The real estate in this case, which is the first claim of the defendant's counterclaim, is the real estate that the defendant trusted in title to the plaintiff.

Since a title trust agreement on the instant real estate is null and void (the Defendant asserted the cancellation of the title trust agreement on the instant real estate, it appears that the entire title trust agreement on the instant real estate is null and void in light of the purport of the entire assertion as to the instant real estate). The Plaintiff was paid to the Defendant the purchase price for the instant real estate and the cost of transfer of ownership, etc.