1. The confirmation of ownership against the defendant and the plaintiff in the application for participation by an independent party intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the parties themselves, and the Defendant and the Intervenor were in a de facto marital relationship, but the de facto marital relationship was terminated following the conciliation formed on August 16, 2017 between the Defendant and the Intervenor [the Jeonju District Court 2015ddan102, 2016ddan31 (Counterclaim)] in a lawsuit between the Defendant and the Intervenor.

B. On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale as of May 20, 201, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from D with the Plaintiff’s funds, and entered into a so-called “three-party title trust agreement” with the content that only the ownership of one-half shares is entrusted to the Defendant.

However, the transfer registration of ownership as to the above title trust agreement and one-half shares in the name of the defendant (hereinafter “share in the defendant’s name”) following the above title trust agreement is the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

As such, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of unjust enrichment return as to the portion in the name of the Defendant’s ownership, since the Defendant gains profits without any legal ground by holding the ownership of the said portion.

B. The real estate of this case by the intervenor was in de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, the profits that the defendant received while engaging in the business of selling the plaintiff's clothes with the plaintiff, the intervenor and the defendant's apartment sales price, etc.

Therefore, the share in the real estate in the name of the defendant among the real estate in this case is formed and maintained by the joint efforts of the intervenor and the defendant in a de facto marriage, and is subject to division of property according to a de facto marriage. The intervenor has the right to receive 1/2 out of the share in the name of the defendant, i.e., the share in

Accordingly, the intervenor ① is the plaintiff.