1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main text of Article 420

The second part of the judgment of the first instance court's second part of the plaintiff's assertion of the second part of the judgment is as follows.

“B” purchased the instant apartment under the name of the Defendant, which had no specific income at the time, with the aim of evading compulsory execution under the insolvent, such as bearing the instant judgment debt against the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership. However, even though the above title trust agreement was null and void pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under the Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Defendant, the title trustee, acquired the entire ownership of the instant real estate, and thus, was deemed to have made unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase funds received from B, the title truster, and thus, the Plaintiff was deemed to have made unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant in the first instance judgment of the first instance court, “this court” in the first instance court, and “the instant case” in the second instance in the same 20th sentence, respectively.

Part 3-B of the decision of the first instance court is examined as follows.

The Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that a title trust agreement was concluded between B and the Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that a title trust agreement existed between B and the Defendant is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange at the trial is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.