1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows, except where the second and third "N" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as "C", and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant house was owned by the Plaintiff with the burden of KRW 38,80,000 for construction costs. The Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, made registration of preservation of ownership and made title trust to F.

The defendant, even with the knowledge of such circumstances, estimated F with the knowledge of F, completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the defendant, which was based on donation.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above money, since the plaintiff's unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to 38.8 million won of the construction cost incurred in relation to the above house.

3. Determination

A. The real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and the person who asserts that he/she had registered by the trust of another person shall be liable to prove the title trust fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da36372 Decided March 28, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479 Decided October 29, 2015, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff, at the time of registration of ownership preservation of the instant house, title trust of the instant house to F at the time of registration of ownership preservation, was in fact owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(O) According to the evidence Nos. 5-2, 3, and 4-2, 5-2, 3, and 4, both of the instant land and the instant housing are owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant appears to have exercised his right as a lawful owner by paying property tax on the instant land and housing from around 2012. Therefore, the instant claim based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant housing is without merit.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff submitted.