1. As to shares of 1/3 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Defendant B is the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are siblings, and Defendant C is the same as the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and they are the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant B.

B. On April 21, 2003, a sales contract was formulated between Defendant C and the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s wife E, and Defendant B, stating that the Plaintiff, E, and Defendant B would purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant C in the purchase price of KRW 700 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The said sales contract entered into by Defendant C was formulated.

On May 23, 2003, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of 1/3 of the instant real estate to Plaintiffs, E, and Defendant B as Seoul Eastern District Court No. 48761 on the same day.

C. Meanwhile, on December 7, 1995, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on November 15, 1995 with respect to the title of Seocho-gu F and H apartment I in Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and H apartment I in its name.

On December 14, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on November 15, 1995 with respect to Defendant B’s wife K and L ground M apartment N N in its name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 12, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was indicated as the purchaser of the instant sales contract by Defendant B, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to 1/3 shares of the instant real estate in the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant shares”). However, in fact, the instant real estate purchased from Defendant C and only the registered name was purchased under Defendant B’s name, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant B’s name is null and void pursuant to a three-party title trust agreement.

On the other hand, even if the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the shares in this case is null and void, the plaintiff.