1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a de facto marital relationship from around 2000, but the de facto marital relationship was terminated around August 2007.

B. As to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), on November 6, 2001, the registration of ownership transfer was completed against the defendant under the receipt of No. 206258 of December 4, 2001 by the Incheon District Court North Incheon District Court’s receipt of December 4, 2001.

C. From January 2002, C, the mother of the Plaintiff, is residing in the apartment of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1-3 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment, and then the Defendant subsequently purchased the instant apartment, so the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of unjust enrichment with respect to the instant apartment.

Shed Dod Preliminary, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are obliged to continue to reside in the instant apartment at the time when the de facto marital relationship is terminated, and the Defendant promised to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment upon the death of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the agreement around August 2007 with respect to the instant apartment on the ground of the agreement.

B. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion (i) The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a title trust agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant apartment as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if there was a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment, it is highly probable that the seller did not know that such a title trust agreement existed, and if so, the Defendant acquired the complete ownership of the instant apartment.