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

A. The gist of the claim is that the Plaintiff holds the claim amounting to KRW 9,600,600 against B.

B On May 14, 2014, the petitioner-gu, Cheongju-si, completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer registration on May 16, 2014, under the receipt of the Cheongju District Court Decision No. 61904 on May 16, 2014. The registration of ownership transfer was completed to the Defendant on August 1, 2014.

B and the Defendant shall be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership and the registration of the transfer of ownership shall be revoked accordingly. Since it is difficult for the Defendant to return originals by completing the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage after the registration of the transfer of ownership was completed, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the equivalent amount to the amount stated in the claim.

B. If the obligor, with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, performs a juristic act aiming at a property right, the obligee is only entitled to file a lawsuit to the court for the revocation of the fraudulent act, and it cannot be asserted as a means of attack or defense in the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da11008 delivered on January 26, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393 delivered on July 25, 1995, etc.). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is merely stated as the cause of a claim for a complaint and modification of a lawsuit, but does not claim cancellation of a legal act between B and the Defendant from the purport of the claim, and it is merely merely that the revocation of a fraudulent act was asserted as a mere means of attack in a lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of revocation of fraudulent act is without merit, without any need to determine whether it is proper.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and B for a third party with the content that the Defendant shall pay KRW 9,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s intent to make profits.