The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed on November 6, 2014).

Although one side of the married couple's real estate acquired in his name during the marriage is presumed to be his own peculiar property (Article 830(1) of the Civil Act), the presumption may be reversed in the event that the other side proves that it has been acquired by bearing the price for the pertinent property in fact, and the other party bearing the price may be deemed to have trusted the real estate in title to the nominal owner for convenience.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da79704 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the presumption that the real estate is unique property of the Defendant was reversed, and that C was a title trust to the Defendant, on the grounds that each real estate listed in the attached list of the lower judgment was borne by the Defendant C with the intent to own by the Defendant’s husband.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.