1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on August 20, 1986, and currently, Ulsan District Court 2015dhap363, a divorce lawsuit is pending.

B. From 1999, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to operate a swine boom, and had several places of business in Busan and Gyeongnam area. Among them, the business registration and lease contract of the place of business listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant place of business”) are in the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 6 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant place of business was practically managed by paying a lease deposit to the instant place of business with his money, newly constructing a restaurant building, employing employees, and managing the Defendant’s passbook and seal, by paying the business income deposited into the Defendant’s account such as personnel expenses, material expenses, rent, etc. However, the lease contract and business registration was made in the Defendant’s name on the grounds of tax reduction, etc.

Therefore, a lease agreement under the name of the defendant on the instant business place constitutes a title trust.

The Plaintiff terminated the title trust agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint. As such, the Defendant is obligated to transfer the right to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff with respect to the instant business establishment, and notify the lessor of the transfer.

3. According to the testimony of evidence Nos. 12 and 14, witness C, and D, the Plaintiff approved the disbursement of expenses incurred in operating the store while managing the income of the entire place of business including the instant place of business. Of the instant place of business, D was punished by a fine in violation of the Food Sanitation Act as the operator of the instant place of business, and the Plaintiff paid the fine.

However, each number of Nos. 15 to 30, 35.