1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with D on September 3, 2008. At present, the Plaintiff is continuing to file a divorce suit under the Incheon Family Court’s Vice-Support 2015ddan10665, and Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s wife as D’s child.

B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned jointly by E and F, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 28, 2014.

C. Since March 9, 2015, Defendant B entered into a contract with Defendant C to sell the instant real estate in KRW 221,000,000 among the price thereof, and Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts the gist of the claim of this case as follows. A.

In the initial purchase of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff only lent the name of Defendant B to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and actually paid all the purchase price of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, D and their children reside in the instant real estate. Therefore, the actual owner of the instant real estate is the Plaintiff.

B. However, Defendant B conspired with Defendant C to conclude a sales contract of the instant real estate and transfer ownership in order to deduct the property to be divided in the divorce lawsuit between the Plaintiff and D by means of the crypting that the registered name of the instant real estate has been completed in its future, and thus, the said sales contract is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy.

C. Therefore, the title trust agreement between Defendant B is terminated by the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Of unjust enrichment, Defendant B’s partial claim against Defendant B, 150,000,000 and delay damages therefrom, and Defendant B’s transfer of ownership as to the apartment of this case by subrogation against Defendant B.