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

A. On February 21, 2011, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 89 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition on March 18, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on D’s sale on the same day. On February 24, 2011, E completed the registration of ownership transfer claim based on the promise to sell the instant real estate on the same day.

B. After doing so, on October 28, 201, the Defendant completed the attachment registration on the instant real estate due to the disposition on default of local taxes on D.

C. The Plaintiff, a creditor of B, filed a lawsuit against D and E seeking revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to its original state as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Da49856, and the said court rendered a judgment on January 10, 2014 that revoked the said sales contract on the ground that the sales contract concluded on February 21, 2011 between B and D with respect to the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act against B, and rendered a judgment on February 21, 201 with respect to D, ordering D to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as of February 21, 201 and the registration of transfer of ownership as of February 24, 201 with respect to E.

E appealed against the above judgment, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal of E on December 12, 2014, and the appeal of E was dismissed on April 23, 2015.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 5, Gap evidence 5-1 through 15, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Defendant seized the instant real estate on the ground that D’s default of property tax, and the judgment became final and conclusive to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under D’s name concerning the instant real estate, and the registration of seizure under the Defendant’s name concerning the instant real estate should also be cancelled depending on changes in circumstances. Therefore, the Plaintiff