1. The Defendant’s KRW 260,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 15, 2016 to December 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff decided to purchase land located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do, a candidate for holding the Winter Olympic Winter Games, through the Defendant’s pro-friendly job offers, and issued the passbook and seal of the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff to the Defendant on April 19, 2010.

B. On March 26, 2010, the Defendant paid the price of KRW 300 million for KRW 5653 square meters of Gangwon-gun C forest land and KRW 74107 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) purchased in advance on March 26, 201, following the payment:

5. On the other hand, in relation to each of the instant lands under the Defendant’s name, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to each of the instant lands and the E- 7934 square meters of forest land purchased earlier by the Defendant (hereinafter “Adjoining land”), the Defendant set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 500 million as joint security, the Defendant’s right to collateral security, and the superficies for owning solid buildings and trees.

C. Subsequent to that, the Defendant: (a) set up, on July 23, 201, a right to collateral security (F) and the maximum debt amount 15 million won with the land of this case as a joint collateral; (b) terminated the said right on March 29, 201; and (c) cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring land; and (d) cancelled the registration of creation of a mortgage:

9.7. Establishment of the right to collateral security between the mortgagee G and the maximum debt amount of 28 billion won.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff returned KRW 4 million from the Defendant on December 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the witness H's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

3. According to the facts established prior to the establishment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land, and entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant to have the registration thereof registered under the name of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for each of the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant. The title trust agreement between the original and the Defendant is null and void.