1. Defendant C’s KRW 17,894,447 as well as 5% per annum from November 1, 2014 to April 29, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a sales contract to purchase KRW 268,000,000 from Defendant C, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) by borrowing the name of Defendant B, a real estate broker, for the purchase of KRW 102-dong 107 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, along with the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff for the purchase and sale of the apartment of this case on the same date, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the maximum debt amount of 40 million won, the debtor D and the mortgagee as the Plaintiff.

B. On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration of the instant apartment on the F’s title trustee D, and on the same day, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration of the instant apartment to F, his/her parent, and cancelled the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer and the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage.

C. The Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation filed a lawsuit against Defendant C seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, etc. on the ground that the said claim constitutes a fraudulent act or becomes null and void as a result of the title trust agreement, on the ground that the sales contract between the Plaintiff, D, and F with the Plaintiff, D, and C constituted a fraudulent act or the transfer of ownership in the name of D and F, the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act or seeking revocation of the transfer of ownership in the name of F with respect to the instant apartment by subrogation of Defendant C.

On January 24, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court, which was the appellate court, concluded a title trust agreement with D on the apartment of this case with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C, the seller, was aware of the above title trust relationship. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D and the same.