1. The defendant is based on the restoration of the real name with respect to the area of 2,314 square meters prior to C in a third party to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 20, 198, the Plaintiff purchased the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 2, 198.

B. On September 2, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant to title trust the instant land (hereinafter “instant title trust agreement”) with the Defendant on September 2, 2005, and completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant land (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the title trust agreement and any change in the real right to real estate that took place according to the registration is null and void. Thus, the title trust agreement in this case is null and void, and the ownership transfer registration in this case according to the agreement

However, the true owner who had already registered ownership in his/her own name can seek implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name instead of seeking cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder by means of restoring the registration name.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name as sought by the Plaintiff, who completed the registration of ownership transfer as the owner of the instant land.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.