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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The plaintiff is a person who was in a legal marital relationship between C and April 17, 1989 to April 18, 2006, and the defendant is a woman of C.

On the other hand, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was a corporation established for the purpose of mid-term rental business on January 18, 200, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a registration director of the above corporation and resigned. At present, Jin-Do, the Plaintiff was employed as a representative director.

B. On February 21, 2004, the Defendant, prior to the divorce between the Plaintiff and C, filed a registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as the receipt No. 6930 on February 21, 2004, such as Chungcheong District Court Assistance, etc.

C. After December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of ownership in the name of K on the ground of “sale as of November 2, 2010” (hereinafter “transfer registration of ownership”) was completed on the ground of “sale as of November 2, 2010,” and on May 23, 2017, on the ground of “sale as of May 23, 2017,” respectively.

C On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff and K sent to the Plaintiff and K a certificate of content that “The instant apartment is owned by the principal (C) and the Plaintiff and K have committed an offense for which the first registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant apartment was made at will by using the Defendant’s office capacity, and if not cancelled, it is expected to bring a civil or criminal lawsuit.”

E. Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the said K with the Cheongju District Court 2015Kadan22482, which sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the Cheongju District Court 2015Kadan22482, and the said court recognized on March 9, 2017 that “the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) was in the status of the office ability, whose total intelligent index was 40 years of age and 5 months of age, when concluding the sales contract.”