1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on June 2, 2013, with respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The plaintiff is the defendant's child.

Attached Form

The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on June 17, 2013 due to the sale and purchase on May 3, 2013, the real estate listed in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day due to the sale and purchase on June 17, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant sale”). On June 25, 2013, the Jeju District Court received the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”).

[In the absence of dispute, Gap 13]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s real estate is owned by the Plaintiff, and the provisional registration of this case is null and void since the Plaintiff conspireds with the Defendant in order to prepare for the situation where the Plaintiff’s creditor can enforce compulsory execution on the instant real estate.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. The real estate of this case was registered in title by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the defendant completed the provisional registration of this case to register the transfer of ownership later.

The defendant shall terminate the title trust agreement with the service of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to the instant real estate.

3. Determination

A. Since a person registered as an owner of a real estate held in title trust is presumed to have acquired ownership by due process and cause, the fact that the registration was based on the title trust has the burden of proof for the claimant.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883 Decided April 24, 2008). At the time of the instant sales, the Plaintiff was in China and the Defendant had the object to purchase and sold, and the fact that the instant sales had been conducted by coloring the object to be purchased is recognized (no dispute exists). However, the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and No. 9-1.