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. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2015, the instant land was divided into D 2,456 square meters prior to Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) and 1,467 square meters prior to C (hereinafter “instant two land”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land 1,28 December 28, 2015, based on trade on September 9, 2015.

B. Since May 4, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the purchase and sale on April 19, 2016.

C. Around that time, a single house (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly built on the ground of the instant land, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on May 13, 2016 in the name of the Plaintiff on the said building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On July 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the contract title trust agreement was concluded with the Defendant on the land before the instant partition. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 259,70,000 from the Plaintiff as a purchase fund and acquired the land before the instant partition.

Although the above title trust agreement itself is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above purchase fund as unjust enrichment.

However, since the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land of this case in the future of the plaintiff, but the defendant transferred the land of this case to the plaintiff according to the principal place of the title trust agreement. Since the building of this case was newly constructed with the plaintiff's cost and effort, it is irrelevant to the settlement agreement on the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant still holds as to the two lands of this case.