1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance, A.W.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination:

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion, etc.

A. The actual purchaser of the sales contract for the instant real estate asserted by the Plaintiff is D. However, inasmuch as only the purchaser’s registration title of the instant land was entrusted to Defendant C pursuant to the agreement between D and the Defendants, this ought to be cancelled as a registration based on an invalid title trust in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

B. The distinction between whether a title trust agreement is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust agreement is a matter of determining who the contracting party becomes a title trustee.

Even if a contracting party can be seen as a title truster, it will be a three-party registered title trust.

Therefore, if it is recognized that a contract is concluded with the intention of directly reverting the legal effect of the contract to the title truster rather than the title trustee, the title truster is the contracting party. Therefore, the title trust relationship in this case should be deemed as a three-party registered title trust.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52799 Decided October 28, 2010). C.

Facts of recognition

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of Defendant C with respect to the instant real estate is as shown in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, and the fact that the purchaser entered in the sales contract of the instant real estate as Defendant C is recognized according to the statement in the certificate No. 1 A.

However, the following facts are acknowledged according to the contents of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of testimony and pleading of witness E of the first instance trial.

① On April 19, 2012, D purchased the credit to the Plaintiff, but its present registration is registered.