1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee certificate when B obtained a loan of KRW 240,160 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea. At the time C, D, and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), at the time, jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation that B bears against the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with respect to C, etc., seeking reimbursement of KRW 225,885,353 under the Credit Guarantee Agreement, and delay damages for KRW 225,098,659, among them, and the payment order with respect to C was finalized on April 3, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C is as follows: (a) between the Defendant and his wife, real estate listed in the separate sheet in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

A) A title trust agreement that C purchases and provides the purchase fund was concluded by C, and the Defendant purchased the instant apartment from F on August 30, 2002 in accordance with the agreement and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on October 15, 2002. Such a title trust agreement between the above married couple is valid. The Plaintiff holding the claim for indemnity against C is terminated by subrogation of C, and the Plaintiff can seek the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment against the Defendant. However, even though the Defendant sold the instant apartment to a third party, the above claim for the registration of ownership transfer became impossible by selling the instant apartment to the said third party. 2) Even if there was no title trust agreement between C and the Defendant, the Defendant received the purchase fund of the instant apartment under the pretext of property division, and thus, C has the right to share 1/2 with respect to the instant apartment.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return at least KRW 192,500,000,000,000, out of the sales price of the apartment of this case, at least KRW 385,000,000, to the Plaintiff who subrogated C, as unjust enrichment. (B)