1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against B for the payment of goods under this Court No. 2009Da1963, and “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 107,705,920 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from January 30, 2001 to the date of full payment.” The payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized on May 15, 2009.

B. On July 10, 2009, the Defendant, the wife of B, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 7, 2009 with respect to D 132 square meters, E 190 square meters, F 168 square meters, G 105 square meters, which was owned by C on July 1, 2009. On February 4, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on July 1, 2013, with respect to the 719 square meters, Jeonju-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where H was owned on February 4, 2013, the registration of transfer of ownership on the 15 square meters, 173 square meters, and the 15 square meters prior to K on February 1, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estates in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the above real estates / [the ground for recognition], Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 21-11 through 14, Gap evidence 23-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that B, who actually bears the obligation to pay the instant payment order against the Plaintiff, was entrusted to the Defendant, who is the wife, even though the Plaintiff had paid the purchase price for each of the instant real estate, for the purpose of evading the obligation.

The Plaintiff exercised the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment upon the invalidity of the above title trust held by B on behalf of the insolvent Party B in order to preserve the claim for the payment order of this case. Thus, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim as part of the money.

B. According to the overall purport of the argument and examination as to whether the judgment B held the title trust of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the fact that the actual purchase price of each of the instant real estate was withdrawn from the passbook in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant where the purchase price of each of the instant real estate was withdrawn is recognized, but the head of the passbook in the name of the