1. The Defendant completed the Plaintiff with the Jeju District Court No. 9107 received on February 7, 2011 with respect to B 55 square meters in Jeju-si.

Facts of recognition

A. On October 18, 2010, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “each provisional registration of this case”) was completed on October 18, 2010 with respect to the land of 55 square meters and 430 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Jeju-si, Jeju-si, Jeju-si, Jeju-si, Jeju-si, and the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “each provisional registration of this case”). On February 7, 2011, the instant real estate was completed on August 31, 201, and the attachment registration of the instant real estate that became the Defendant on the ground of the delinquency in payment of national taxes (hereinafter “each of the instant attachment registration”).

B. Meanwhile, on September 14, 201, with respect to the instant real estate 1 and 2, the principal registration for ownership transfer was completed on the basis of the instant provisional registration on September 14, 201, and the registration officer notified the Defendant of the revocation ex officio of each of the instant provisional registration. However, on October 12, 2011, each of the instant provisional registrations was cited by the Defendant’s objection registrar, etc., and was not revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, and determination as to the ground for claim of the whole pleadings, each of the registrations of this case shall be cancelled unless there are special circumstances due to the principal registration based on each provisional registration of this case.

Judgment on the defendant's argument

A. The defendant asserts that the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is null and void since the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case 1, 2 in fact D because it constitutes a title trust because it constitutes a false ownership.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff and Eul may recognize the fact that they are in a prison relationship, that part of the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent received from the Jeju City with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case has been used by D, and that the briefs, etc. of this case have been prepared by D. However, it is difficult to conclude that the above fact of recognition alone is a real owner of the real estate No. 1 and 2 of this case as D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.