1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for the following parts: "3. preliminary claim determination" on the five pages of the judgment of the first instance court. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate Real Name Act") provides for a claim for return of unjust enrichment for preliminary claim.

(2) According to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act, where a title truster and a title trustee entered into a so-called contract title trust agreement with the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trustee was a party to the contract and entered into a title trust agreement, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the pertinent real estate in accordance with the said contract, the title trustee would acquire full ownership of the pertinent real estate, notwithstanding the invalidity of the title trust agreement between the title truster and the title trustee. However, if the said contract title trust agreement was concluded after the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the title truster could not acquire ownership of the pertinent real estate from the beginning, and thus, the loss incurred by the title truster due to the invalidity of the said title trust agreement is not the pertinent real estate itself, but the purchase fund provided to the title trustee. Therefore, the title trustee would be unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69148, Feb. 14, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69148, Mar. 12, 2013).