1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around May 2002, the Plaintiff purchased from Suwon-si, Suwon-si, D apartment 2 and 1207 apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) entered into a contract title trust agreement with the Defendant; (c) and (d) the Defendant, who was unaware of such title trust, entered into a sales contract with C and the Defendant, and then transferred KRW 100 million to C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

As such, the defendant acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case in accordance with the contract title trust agreement with the plaintiff and obtained unjust enrichment of KRW 100 million, which is the purchase fund, so the defendant is obligated to return this to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to the apartment of this case, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant was completed on September 6, 2002 does not conflict between the parties.

B. However, considering the following circumstances, if Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and Eul evidence 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings in witness E’s testimony, the plaintiff appears to have sold the apartment of this case to the defendant couple by having the defendant couple gather the plaintiff’s mother (the defendant’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother, and when considering that the purchase price for the apartment of this case was remitted in the plaintiff’s name, there is room to deem that the contracting party to the sales contract with Eul is not the defendant but the plaintiff (the title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a contract title trust, but a three-party registered title trust), even if considering the contract party, it is difficult to conclude that Eul, the defendant, the seller, was unaware of the title trust (in case of a bad faith, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has a right to claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund against the defendant).