The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that D’s purchase of each of the instant real estate from Defendant A, as well as D and Defendant B, and D become a title truster, and completed each registration of ownership transfer in collusion with Defendant B as an intermediate trustee and Defendant C as a final trustee, and that the same purport is as follows: (a) criminal judgment of conviction against D, Defendant B, and C (Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, Jeonju District Court Decision 2012 high-level 285 high-level 2015 high-level 2015 high-level 285 high-level 2005 high-level 5) became final (Evidence 5).

However, in a case where a certain person purchases real estate through another person, and the name of the buyer and the name of the transfer of ownership are decided in the name of another person, the trust relationship between the buyer and the title truster is merely an internal relationship between them. Barring special circumstances, such as where the other party understood the title truster as the party to the sale, the external purchaser should be deemed the party to the sale and purchase, and even if the other party was aware of the title trust relationship, the same applies unless special circumstances are acknowledged, such as where the other party entered into a contract with the intent to directly bring about the legal effect of the contract to the title truster rather than the other party to the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da207928, Jul. 22, 2016). In a case where the issue is whether the title trust is a “title trust” or “third party title trust”, and the party asserting the “third party title trust” must prove such fact.