The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, based on its stated reasoning, that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to one-half shares among the instant cartels was made in accordance with the trust agreement between

The judgment below

In light of the reasons and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the disposal document or by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the language, content, structure, and legislative purpose, etc. of the provisions of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), determination as to Article 3 of the Grounds for Appeal, the mere fact that the real estate Real Name Act was registered under the name of the title trustee pursuant to an invalid title trust agreement cannot be readily concluded

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da218156, Jun. 20, 2019). The lower court determined that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to 1/2 shares among the instant franchise was null and void in accordance with the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for 1/2 shares out of the instant franchise with respect to the Plaintiff who had newly constructed the instant franchise and subsequently acquired the instant franchise.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to real name act of real estate, acts contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.