1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including the whole number).

On June 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of goods with the Daegu District Court Branch 2007Gadan28875, and won the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff on June 25, 2008, that "C shall pay to the plaintiff 21,990,600 won and interest rate of 20% per annum from November 23, 2007 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, between D and D on February 9, 2008, the Defendant, the wife of C, entered into a sales contract with D to purchase the purchase price of KRW 140 million, Daegu-gu E 307 Dong 1907 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant for the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C concluded a contract title trust agreement with the Defendant, the spouse, and had the Defendant purchase the instant real estate from D.

As long as D, a seller, has acted in good faith with respect to the above title trust, the Defendant acquired ownership of the pertinent real estate. As such, C may seek a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 60 million, which C provided to the Defendant through Dong F, through Dong F, and C is insolvent, and as C is insolvent, the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against C in subrogation to the Defendant in order to preserve the claim for the return of unjust enrichment against C.

B. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone entered into a contract title trust agreement with the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided money equivalent to the purchase price of the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.