1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. Of the instant real estate owned by Nonparty C, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 10, 2005 with respect to the 1/2 shares to Nonparty D, who is the Defendant’s spouse, with respect to each of the 1/4 shares on June 10, 205 to Nonparty E and F as the grounds for registration.

B. D on September 8, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of share transfer with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 2-2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate, including the instant shares, pursuant to the title trust agreement with respect to 1/4 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”), among the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and D. However, on May 30, 2005, D agreed to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Defendant, who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said 1/2 shares, was also obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares due to the instant agreement to the Plaintiff.

In addition, as above, the Defendant, who is liable for the registration procedure for transfer of shares, obtained a profit of KRW 12,00,000 without any legal ground for ten (10) years as interest in the instant case, and thus, is obligated to return the said KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) Even if D agreed to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant shares as alleged by the Plaintiff, the circumstance asserted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant also bears the obligation to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration is without merit. 2) and even if the Defendant bears the obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff

Even if the defendant owns it, he is the owner.