1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, accepts it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fifth fifth decision of the court of first instance was made with "the decision of recommending reconciliation was finally binding" as "the decision of recommending reconciliation was made on September 29, 2010."

Part 5 of the fifth decision of the first instance court " January 11, 201" shall be applied to " January 12, 201".

Part 6 of the 3rd judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as "AD and one other (hereinafter referred to as "B") shall be applied to "AD and the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "B")".

The "right to claim materials" in Part 2 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to "right to claim materials".

The 11th decision of the first instance court shall be deleted from "the defendant" in the 10th decision of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the establishment of a title trust agreement, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion A) promoted a project for completing and selling a house A, B, and C, which is a multi-family housing, with funds provided as security and borrowed from the instant land (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out project”) and paid the purchase price including the amount equivalent to the land rental debt against the Defendant with the proceeds from the sale of the land in this case, and completed the instant registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendant, who is the landowner, for a temporary period to obtain approval for the use of the land and building A and B, because the owner of the land and building cannot obtain approval for the use of the land in different cases.

B. Therefore, the agreement that “A/Dong building shall be registered in the name of the Defendant” among the instant sales contract constitutes a title trust agreement and the ownership transfer registration of this case is null and void. Thus, the Defendant shall register the ownership transfer of this case to the Plaintiff.