1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 90,612,885 and KRW 70 million among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,612,85, and KRW 20,612,885.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 28, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the Guro-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 85 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment.

B. On July 28, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the instant apartment without a deposit for rent of KRW 500,000 per month, and for two years from July 30, 2010, and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant apartment. Around July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff resided in the instant apartment even around July 24, 2017.

C. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract to sell E and the instant apartment in KRW 155 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment to E on August 2, 2017.

The plaintiff, defendant is in the relationship between South and North Korea and the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 17 (including the number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. In order to avoid compulsory execution, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant apartment was nominal to the Defendant, who is a sales agent, and that various expenses, interest on loans, etc. incurred therefrom, shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall be paid KRW 500,000 per month to the Defendant and the settlement was subsequently made thereafter. Since the Defendant sold the instant apartment to E with KRW 1550,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment

B. On December 19, 2007, the defendant argued that the defendant lent 25 million won to the plaintiff on December 19, 2007, and the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the apartment of this case, decided to repay 51 million won on behalf of the plaintiff, and actually purchased the apartment of this case by setting the sales price as KRW 85 million, and the registration certificate is also required. Thus, the apartment of this case is not nominal trust.

3. Determination

A. Prior to whether a title trust was held, or Gap.