1. With respect to the area of 863 square meters and the area of 2,307 square meters in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do:

A. Defendant B is against Defendant C.

1. Plaintiff’s request for registration against the Defendants

A. The facts under the recognition of facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C’s clan (hereinafter “Defendant C’s clan”), and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, it may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1; (b) evidence No. 3-1; (c) witness F’s testimony; and (d) witness G’s testimony.

On June 18, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant clan to purchase each of the lands listed in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 190 million (However, the buyer entered his name in the contract as Defendant B) and paid all the purchase price. However, the transfer registration of ownership on the instant land was completed on July 20, 204 in accordance with the title trust agreement with Defendant B.

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”). B.

Judgment

According to the above facts, the ownership transfer registration of this case is completed by the so-called "third party title trust", and is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name. Thus, the ownership of the land of this case remains in the defendant clan, the seller, and the defendant clan may seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the defendant B by excluding interference based on its ownership.

In addition, since the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant's clan still remains valid, the plaintiff may file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case against the defendant's clan, and in order to preserve the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim the registration of

As to this, Defendant B alleged that the party to the sales contract for the land of this case is not the Plaintiff but the Defendant B, but the transfer registration of this case was completed by the so-called “title trust,” but by the evidence mentioned above.