가등기등 말소
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The purchase and sale reservation entered into on April 12, 2016 between the Defendant and C is made.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 273,00,00 to C for a period of three months after the due date for reimbursement, 3% per interest month. On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff set KRW 182,00,000 to C for a period of payment of KRW 182,00,000 on November 24, 2014, and lent it to C for a period of three percent per interest month. However, the Plaintiff failed to receive the said loan properly.
B. Accordingly, on November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for a loan claim with the Busan District Court Branch Decision 2016Gahap690, and rendered a judgment on November 9, 2016 that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 537,501,096 and delay damages therefor,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On the other hand, on April 12, 2016, C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 12, 2016, C concluded a provisional registration on the said real estate as the receipt of No. 35130 on April 12, 2016, and on May 31, 2016, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each of the real estate 1/4 shares of each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). On June 2, 2016, C completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch No. 54695, 54696, 54697, 54698, and 54698, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 7-3 of evidence 33, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that the contract for the sale and purchase of this case was concluded in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the contract for the sale and purchase of this case should be revoked by fraudulent act and the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim and ownership transfer registration should be revoked due to restitution to its original state.
In regard to this, the Defendant did not have any obligation at the time of the instant sales contract and the promise to sell and purchase, and the Defendant was a creditor of 70 million won against C, whose payment in kind and/or C are different from those owned by C.