1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts and

2. The grounds for this court’s assertion by the parties are as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. Where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure obtains a decision to permit sale under the name of another person and pays the purchase price in full at his/her own expense under the title trust agreement with the other person, ownership of real estate for auction purpose is acquired by the title holder regardless of whether he/she bears the purchase price, and a title trust agreement between the title truster and the title trustee who lends the name of the title truster who bears the purchase price is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under the name of the actual right holder, and the title truster

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73102 Decided September 10, 2009). B.

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the above evidence and the purport of the entire statements and arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 11, and 12:

- The apartment of this case was owned by the Plaintiff.

- On November 11, 2013, I applied for a compulsory auction for the instant apartment on November 11, 2013, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on November 12, 2013 (J of the Daegu District Court), and on April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid to I the claim amounting to KRW 30 million, and on the same day I withdrawn the above compulsory auction application.

[On the other hand, the claim amounting to KRW 30 million, which is the cause of the above compulsory auction, was forged by the plaintiff's spouse F, and the plaintiff asserted that he offsets the above claim amounting to KRW 30 million with the unjust enrichment return claim against KRW 30 million in the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff's spouse F with respect to the loan claim in the name of the plaintiff's spouse F.