1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

As to the instant real estate owned by Defendant C, the Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as the receipt of June 16, 201 by the court No. 15524 on June 16, 201.

As to the instant real estate to Defendant B, Defendant C completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on February 7, 2014 as the receipt of February 7, 2014 by the court No. 3029.

【The Plaintiff and Defendant B, who asserted the purport of the entire pleadings and entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire pleadings, were living together with the Plaintiff from August 2007 to December 2013.

On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff trusted the instant real estate in title to Defendant C, which was a usual child.

Defendant B, who was well aware of these circumstances, actively asked Defendant C to transfer the instant real estate because he/she would be responsible for the transfer of the instant real estate.

Therefore, the defendant C completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant B without monetary transactions.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B, which is null and void due to the act of active participation in the act of worship, and to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant C, which

In the case of bilateral registered title trust, the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the title trustee made under the title trust agreement with the title truster should be cancelled as a cause invalidation. However, the title trustee cannot assert that the title trustee is the owner of the entrusted real estate in the relationship with the third party as well as the title truster, and cannot exercise a real right claim based on ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da18402, 18419, Aug. 24, 2006). However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserts that he/she seeks cancellation on behalf of the Defendant C in subrogation of the Defendant C in the cause of the claim, the purport of the claim is not the subrogation claim.