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

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on October 8, 2009 against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Gadan21543 as it did not repay a loan under the loan transaction agreement as of October 8, 2009. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment that “236,975,357 won and damages for delay of KRW 171,536,000 from the above court shall be paid” and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 29, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was previously owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant, on June 10, 2010, completed the registration of ownership transfer claim based on the pre-sale agreement on June 8, 2010, but completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration on March 6, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that B, the debtor, completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer based on the purchase and sale reservation of the real estate of this case, and completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration is null and void as it is by a false representation of agreement. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that B, who is an insolvent, seeks implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the right to recover the real name

B. The claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true name is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the present registered titleholder in such a way as to restore the true name by the person who has already registered the ownership in his name, or acquired the ownership by law.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is deemed as the true owner of the real estate in this case because the provisional registration under the name of the defendant and the registration of ownership transfer based thereon fall under the false conspiracy.