1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 17, 2014, the fact that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant was completed on each real estate listed in the separate list of basic facts (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) does not conflict between the parties.

B. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was to construct each of the buildings of this case by borrowing all expenses, such as construction cost, from Nonparty C, and to trust only the title holder to the defendant and complete registration of preservation of ownership.

Since the title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void, the defendant, the title trustee, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name to the plaintiff, the owner of the above building.

C. A claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current title holder by means of restoring the true title of registration, in which the person who acquired ownership under the law has already been registered to indicate ownership in his/her future, or by means of restoring

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da37894, Sept. 20, 2001). In the event of a new construction of a building, the ownership belongs to the person who actually provided the goods or the construction cost.

(See Supreme Court Decision 62Da23 delivered on October 29, 1962, etc.), first of all, as to whether the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each of the buildings of this case by constructing each of the buildings of this case with its own cost and effort, according to the health class, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, and witness D’s testimony, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, after the completion of each of the buildings of this case, leased each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 as shown in the separate sheet 1 and 2 before the registration of ownership preservation of each of the buildings of this case, and received the lease deposit.

However, there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 5 to Gap evidence 8, and Eul.