The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the title trust agreement between the Defendant and C is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; (b) C is only entitled to file a claim against the Defendant for unjust enrichment for the successful bid price provided by the title trust agreement; and (c) insofar as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in subrogation of C on September 29, 1995, which was ratified to have paid the successful bid price, and the period of extinctive prescription from September 29, 1995, which was ten

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on title trust

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.