1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had the intent to purchase the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 101 Dong 905 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) under the Defendant’s name, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff shall bear all the purchase price of the instant apartment, but the Plaintiff entered into a contract title trust agreement under which the name of the purchaser under the contract for the sale and the name of the owner on the register shall be the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant title trust agreement”).

B. On July 16, 2009, pursuant to the instant title trust agreement, the Defendant purchased D and the instant apartment from D for KRW 400,000,000, and concluded a sales contract to substitute D’s lease deposit amounting to KRW 180,000,000, among them, for succeeding to the obligation to return KRW 180,000,000, which is the lessee of the instant apartment.

D On September 15, 2009, according to the above sale contract, D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the apartment of this case to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 220,000,000 to the sales price of the instant apartment in accordance with the instant title trust agreement.

However, the instant title trust agreement is null and void.

Thus, the defendant received KRW 220,000,000 from the plaintiff without any legal ground and thereby caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek reimbursement of the above KRW 220,000,000 as a result of the return of unjust enrichment to the Defendant and interest or delay damages thereon.

B. On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) received KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant on February 17, 2012; and (b) renounced all the rights to the instant apartment.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment was extinguished.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. The instant agreement on title trust is concluded, as alleged by the Plaintiff.