1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant on real estate stated in the purport of the claim owned by the Plaintiff, and registered the ownership transfer on June 23, 2009.

Since the Plaintiff, a title truster, lawfully terminates the title trust agreement, the Defendant, the trustee, is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer.

In addition, the plaintiff argues that the transaction contract, which is the ground for registration of transfer of ownership, constitutes a false representation in the agreement under Article 108 of the Civil Code, is invalid, but the same can be viewed

Examining the fact that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s title trust agreement with the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely based on the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 2, 5-1, 5-2, 1, 6-1, 7-2, 7-1 through 8, 9, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 12, and 12, and the Plaintiff’s personal examination result, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the cancellation of the sales contract, which is the cause of registration of ownership transfer, or the cancellation for the defendant's default.

However, there is no assertion or evidence by the plaintiff as to the existence of the statutory termination right and the statutory termination right.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.