1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Basic Facts

On April 8, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) with the purchase price of KRW 1,540,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the same day as the receipt by the vice registry office of Seoul Central District Court No. 18492.

On April 29, 2009, the Plaintiff and Defendant B left a marriage and maintained a de facto marital relationship without reporting the marriage.

On November 18, 2011, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the resolution of de facto marriage relationship.

At present, the Plaintiff and Defendant B are in separate possession, and Defendant C, the branch of Defendant B and Defendant B, resides in the instant housing.

On October 29, 2013, Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming consolation money and division of property against the Plaintiff under the Seoul Family Court 2013Dhap302471, and the said lawsuit is pending in the Seoul Family Court.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 8-1, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 8-1, and 10 of the whole pleadings, and the property acquired in one’s own name during marriage and the property acquired in one’s own name during marriage are presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act). In addition, de facto marital relationship may be resolved by one’s own will, and if the facts of community life are lost due to a reversal by one of the parties, the de facto marital relationship will be resolved.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008SY105, Feb. 9, 2009). With respect to the instant case, the instant house is presumed to be the Plaintiff’s unique property, the nominal owner, and a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff and Defendant B, as seen earlier.