1. The defendant is based on the plaintiff's restoration of real estate stated in the separate sheet.

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 1-2, and the testimony and arguments of the witness C, and the defendant representing the plaintiff, and the defendant, around the beginning of December 2010, entered into a title trust agreement with the purport that "the plaintiff shall complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, not D, which actually seeks to acquire each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and D will have the ownership of the real estate of this case."

If so, the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate, which was made by the above title trust agreement and the above transfer of ownership thereto, is null and void pursuant to Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Thus, the Plaintiff is still

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the real estate of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.