1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 1990, C completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 15, 1990 with respect to each of 1/2 shares of 210 square meters and 1/2 shares of 121 square meters in Kimcheon-si D, Kimcheon-si and the Defendant, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the instant land to Samdo General Construction Co., Ltd. on December 24, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 21, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for refund of the purchase price of the instant land

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 121 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) Although the Plaintiff’s ownership was owned, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the joint name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it can be deemed that a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the 1/2 share of the instant land was concluded orally. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 66 million, which the Defendant received as a result of the sale of the instant land, as unjust enrichment, to the Plaintiff.

B. Judgment 1

A. 1) The assertion is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate procedures and causes as to real estate. As such, the fact that the registration was based on the title trust is based on the title trust bears the burden of proof against the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da9083, Apr. 24, 2008; 2013Da57122, Sept. 4, 2014; 2013Da82913, Jun. 23, 2015; 2013Da82913, Jun. 23, 2015).