1. The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the second instance as follows.

The fourth 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance court shall be referred to as “U”.

The term “183,151,559 won (i.e., KRW 240,00,000 for the lease deposit of this case - KRW 56,848,441 for the long-term repair appropriations paid by N in part of the dividends - KRW 56,848,520 for the long-term repair appropriations paid by N in 784,520 for the lease deposit of this case ? KRW 183,936,151,559 for the unpaid lease deposit of this case - KRW 240,00,000 for the lease deposit of this case - KRW 56,848,441 for the long-term repair appropriations paid by N in part of the dividends - KRW 784,520 for the long-term repair appropriations paid.”

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant apartment sales contract under the name of D upon the Defendant’s request, and accordingly completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said apartment under the name of D. In the process, the Plaintiff paid KRW 560,153,070 in total, including the intermediate payments, etc., and the acquisition cost (i.e., KRW 180,881,625, which was paid in L on April 22, 2010 to the K Bank on April 30, 2010, KRW 361,610,785, which was repaid to the K Bank on April 30, 2010, KRW 12,610,691,340, property tax of KRW 4,969,320, and KRW 369,969,320 (hereinafter

However, since both the contract title trust agreement and the contract between G and the defendant as to the apartment of this case did not exist or become null and void, the plaintiff suffered considerable damages such as the sale price of this case paid as above.

On the other hand, the defendant should be deemed to have obtained a considerable amount of profit, such as the sale price in this case, by practically owning the apartment of this case acquired in the name of D and exercising the management authority such as leasing it to others.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return a reasonable amount of the sales price of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of judgment 1 is about the apartment of this case between the Plaintiff and D.