1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff and the defendant maintained a de facto marital relationship from around 1986, and completed the marriage report on November 20, 1998, and were legally married couple. However, the agreement was married on March 27, 2007.

On June 24, 1996, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future on the grounds of sale on May 15, 1996 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Since then, the instant real estate was designated as a redevelopment area, and New Day Co., Ltd., a redevelopment project developer, purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant in KRW 2,250,000,000, and the Defendant paid KRW 225,000 as down payment on April 24, 2006, KRW 200,000 as the intermediate payment on October 30, 2006, KRW 1,600,000 as the intermediate payment on November 17, 2006, and KRW 225,00,000 as the remainder payment on October 31, 2007.

After selling the instant real estate on December 31, 2007, the Defendant paid KRW 117,868,380 as well as KRW 23,573,670 as well as KRW 117,868,380 as well as KRW 23,670 as well as KRW 117,868,380 as of February 14, 2008.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, 10, 14, and 15 (including each number in the case of virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the court's order to submit taxation information on the paper of the paper of the paper of the court, the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings as to the plaintiff's order to submit taxation information on the paper of the paper of the paper of the court, and the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from 1985 as the property of this case which had been reproduced for ten years. The real estate of this case is decided to title trust the real estate of this case to the defendant in order to handle expenses for accounting by leasing it to the plaintiff's unique property,

However, since the Defendant sold the instant real estate and received KRW 2,250,000,00,000, the Defendant, a real owner of the instant real estate, is obligated to return the said purchase price to the Plaintiff, which is the actual owner of the instant real estate, and thus, obtains profits equivalent to the said amount without any legal ground.