1. The plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed in entirety.

2. Action.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 46 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 1-b of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in paragraph (1) of the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion

As described in paragraph (1), Plaintiff B and Defendant purchased “D’s sole real estate” in the name of Defendant D.

Since such act of title trust is null and void as it is a juristic act in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the first instance court expressed that the ratio of profit distribution, including the disposal price of real estate under DNA single name, is “ratio of property share”.

The settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants set forth in B (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is null and void.

Therefore, the settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendants should be conducted according to the share ratio of each real estate of this case, but the agreement of this case was reached. Thus, the defendants are obligated to return the amount which was settled in excess of their share ratio of each real estate of this case to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

B. Although the plaintiffs' assertion of judgment is premised on the invalidity of the agreement of this case, in full view of the following circumstances, the agreement of this case based on the mutual agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants is deemed to be valid, in light of the basic facts and evidence as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the statements as set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, 10 through 15, and Eul's evidence as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, Eul's evidence, and Eul's evidence as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 1, and

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is without merit.

1. The plaintiffs and the defendants shall each of the real estate of this case and D alone, but the plaintiff A shall be entitled to the real estate of D alone.