1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the primary primary Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2...

1. Determination on both of the principal claims in total

A. On May 29, 1978, when the ownership transfer registration (one-eight shares registration) was completed on the land stipulated in Paragraph (2) of this Article (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) under the joint names of the Plaintiff, the primary Defendant, and the conjunctive Defendant, etc. on May 29, 1978, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s share was changed to 3/20 shares on January 18, 2010 through inheritance, etc., the Plaintiff sought the return of each unjust enrichment arising from exclusive use of and benefit from the instant land by the primary primary Defendant as the cause of the instant claim. Accordingly, the conjunctive Defendant sought the return of each unjust enrichment arising from the Plaintiff’s exclusive use of and benefit from the instant land by the primary primary Defendant, regardless of the name of the registration in the form of the instant land, and thus, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim under the name of the primary Defendant, etc., and further, sought the execution of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the termination of title trust registration procedure.

B. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the primary defendant obtained substantial profits from exclusive use of and benefit from the land of this case in relation to the plaintiff, only with some descriptions of Gap 4, 12-1, and 12-2, and witness Eul's testimony, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's primary defendant on different premise can not be accepted without further review, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's primary defendant cannot be accepted without further review. ② If the primary defendant added the whole purport of each statement of Eul 2, 24-1-24-7 and witness C and E's testimony to the whole purport of the pleadings, the conjunctive defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the plaintiff as the principal and the primary defendant for convenience of 1978 (this does not fall under the act of conflict of interest between a person with parental authority and his children).