1. The defendant, on July 6, 2004, filed with the plaintiff each real estate stated in the attached list with respect to the plaintiff.

1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate list (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate of this case"), each ownership transfer registration was completed in the future in the D on June 28, 2004, in a lump sum, ① ownership transfer registration was completed in the D on June 28, 2004, ② the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (the grounds for registration on July 6, 2004: the pre-registration was completed on July 6, 2004: the pre-registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (the pre-registration date on July 6, 2004: the pre-registration date on July 6, 2004) was completed. ③ Based on the above provisional registration, the principal registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant future on July 6, 2009.

B. On September 22, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against D to claim the return of the principal and interest of the loan, and on October 1, 2008, the Plaintiff received a payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2008 tea9429 case) stating that "D shall pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won and the amount calculated by 20% per annum from November 7, 2008 to the date of full payment." The payment order was finalized on November 21, 2008.

C. After that, based on the enforcement title against D on October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2013TTTTT16886) regarding the future claim for dividends against D against D’s Defendant, etc. on the basis of its enforcement title, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. on November 20, 2013 on the ground of such collection order, but was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant, etc. on August 16, 2016 (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2013Gahap106947) (the judgment became final and conclusive as is on September 9, 2016), and among the reasons for the judgment, the following statements or judgments were included.

◎"D 단독으로 당사자가 되어 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매계약을 체결하고 소유권이전등기를 마침으로써, 동업자들 사이의 내부적 관계에서는 조합체가 D에게 위 부동산을 명의신탁한 것으로 볼 수 있고, 이는 계약의 상대방이 명의신탁약정이 있다는 사실을 알지...