1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1/2 share of the land indicated in attached Table No. 1, as indicated in attached Table No. 1.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are married or married who completed the marriage report on October 20, 1977, or currently divorced lawsuit (the first instance court: Seoul Family Court 2012dhap3319, the appellate court: Seoul High Court 2014Reu499).

On March 7, 1980, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, which was based on sale on February 29, 1980 as to the land listed in paragraph (1) of [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff newly constructed a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the Plaintiff’s name on February 18, 1985.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 7-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land with the funds donated by the Plaintiff’s funds and mother, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant for convenience. Since the title trust is terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust on the date of delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint.

B. Whether the title trust is established or not, and the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his name during the marriage is presumed to be his own peculiar property, but if it is proved that the real reason that the married couple purchased the real estate by sharing one half of the price, the presumption may be reversed and the real estate may be recognized as co-ownership of the married couple.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da42778 delivered on February 3, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da25695 delivered on October 12, 1995, etc.). In full view of the health care unit, each of the items of evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and the whole purport of oral argument as to the instant case, the wages and the Plaintiff collected by the Defendant as a teacher at the time of acquiring the instant land.