1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;

A. On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay by subrogation to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2017 pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement entered into with the instant co-defendant B, and “B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 45,216,367, and the principal amount of KRW 44,902,847, as to the Plaintiff, KRW 10% per annum from March 3, 2017 to April 27, 2017, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

B. Of the instant apartment buildings, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 5, 2005 with respect to subparagraph 1; (2) with respect to subparagraph D; and (3) with respect to subparagraph c, on March 17, 2014, with respect to each of the instant apartment buildings, each of the instant apartment buildings was completed on July 22, 2016 on the following grounds: (a) with respect to each of the instant apartment buildings on July 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant legal act”); and (b) with respect to each of the instant apartment buildings on July 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant legal act”).

2. Determination on both arguments

A. According to the above facts, even if the registration of title trust under the so-called “title trust” that each of the registrations completed in the future B with F was entered into between F and F, as long as B acquired the complete ownership under the proviso of Article 4(2) proviso of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, notwithstanding the invalidity of the said contract, as long as B acquired the complete ownership of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, C and D shall be deemed to have been incorporated into the responsible property belonging to the common obligees’s joint security. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to deem that B thereafter transferred the instant apartment to the Defendant at the request of F, a contracting truster, would constitute a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74874 Decided September 25, 2008 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74874 Decided September 25, 2008; and on the other hand, the title trustee of real estate