1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for the payment order against the Korea Smart and B, Inc. for the payment order of indemnity amount of KRW 188,177,530 and KRW 183,674,317 of the said amount to the creditors jointly and severally, from June 3, 2014 to the delivery date of the original payment order, and KRW 12% per annum from the following day to the delivery date of the original payment order, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date. The said order was finalized on August 26, 2014.

B. On January 18, 2010, the Defendant, the wife of B, purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from C by designating KRW 125,00,000 as the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on February 23, 2010.

C. On April 3, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant apartment to D with the purchase price of KRW 180,000,000, and on April 7, 2014, the ownership transfer registration in the name of D was completed regarding the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant lived with the occupational father after marriage B, and the Defendant was engaged in economic activities while engaging in his personal business, so the instant apartment was actually acquired by B to bear the purchase price and to own it, but it was merely entrusted to the Defendant for convenience. 2) The title trust agreement on the instant apartment between B and the Defendant on the instant apartment was terminated by the Defendant selling the instant apartment to D, and the Defendant obtained a benefit equivalent to the above purchase price without any legal ground. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above purchase price to B.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of B, is partly out of the amount of unjust enrichment that the Defendant received on behalf of the Plaintiff in subrogation of B (1/2, 90.