1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) on August 7, 2012, on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty C.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for damages with the Jeonju District Court 2010Kadan16309, Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court (hereinafter “C”) and rendered a judgment that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 65 million and its delay damages.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed the above judgment (the Jeonju District Court 2012Na283). On July 6, 2012, the appellate court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay KRW 9.1 million in addition to the above recognized amount, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da79385).

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 18, 2006 for the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, on September 22, 2005 for each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the attached list, on September 22, 2005 for the real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the same list, and on March 22, 2005 under the name of the defendant who is the wife of each C.

C Property is not found in addition to one car in 1997, the market price of which is equivalent to three million won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the title trust 1) The real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her name during the marriage is presumed to be his/her own property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act), but if the other spouse proves that he/she actually acquired the price of the pertinent property by bearing the price of the said property, such presumption may be reversed, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been completed in his/her name as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da79704, Apr. 26, 2007). As seen earlier, each of the instant real estate is presumed to be the Defendant’s unique property.

However, there are evidence Nos. 9, 13, 17, and Nos. 4 and 7.