1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant D are their siblings, and Defendant B is the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant D.

B. On June 4, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) to purchase each of the instant real estate in KRW 40,000,000.

The Plaintiff remitted 10,000,000 won for the same day down payment, and 30,000,000 won for the remainder on June 8, 2007 to C, respectively.

C. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on July 2, 2007 (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) with the Ulsan District Court’s Ulsan District Court’s receipt on July 20, 2007 as the receipt No. 8908, Jul. 2, 2007.

Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation on October 6, 2014, No. 9661, which was received on October 22, 2014, with respect to shares of 1/2 of each of the instant real estates, from the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate from C and decided to register the ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B with the consent of Defendant B and C due to tax issues, etc., and accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the instant registration of transfer in the future of Defendant B.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of the instant 1 is based on the so-called three-party title trust agreement, and is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Meanwhile, Defendant D knew that the instant registration of transfer was null and void due to the foregoing circumstances, and had Defendant D purchase the instant real estate and sell 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate to Defendant D in breach of trust.

This is null and void as an act contrary to social order, and therefore the registration of transfer of this case 2 should also be cancelled.

Ultimately, each of the instant real estate is owned by C.