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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), and D is the spouse of the I’s father who is the Defendant’s husband.

B. On January 20, 1976, the deceased was the owner of shares who completed the registration of ownership transfer for 3/13 of each share out of 86 square meters in Mapo-gu, Seoul E, and F 83 square meters. D around 1985, filed an application for compulsory auction for three/13 of the deceased's 86 square meters in Mapo-gu, Seoul, for a compulsory auction (hereinafter "previous land") with the Seoul Civil District Court G on November 15, 1985, and the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued on November 15, 1985. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the decision to permit the auction on June 13, 1987 upon the bid of the previous land at the above auction procedure.

C. Meanwhile, on November 1, 2005, the land substitution was made by a land substitution disposition under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act of Mapo-gu in Seoul, Mapo-gu with a size of 86 square meters and 83 square meters in Seoul, and on the same day, the share of 16.6/14.4 square meters in the land substituted by the same day was registered as the share in the Defendant’s name.

On February 5, 1997, I, the husband of the defendant, proposed that I purchase the real estate of this case to the deceased.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number in case of a tentative number)

2. The Plaintiff alleged D was entrusted with the Plaintiff’s right to registration with the trust of D, and the Defendant conspired with D to collect the claim amount without any cause and completed the transfer of ownership registration upon obtaining a decision of permission of auction in the future of the Defendant on the previous land that was the substitute for the instant real estate without any legal cause. As D and the Defendant recovered the name at any time, they agreed to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the deceased, by paying taxes paid and the auction expenses paid, etc. paid to the Plaintiff as the heir of the deceased. Thus, the Defendant was the reason for the restoration of the real name as to the instant real estate.