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

A. C completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on May 21, 2013 on each of the instant lands owned by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the reservation made on May 20, 2013.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the purchase price for each of the instant land only by 65,826,000 won and paid the down payment of KRW 238,260,000 on the date of the contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract stating that the remainder KRW 420,000 is replaced by the loan.

C. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant completed a supplementary registration on each of the above provisional registrations on March 13, 2014.

On March 13, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant land under Article 40333 of the Suwon District Court’s receipt of registration office on March 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that, under the circumstances where the auction procedure is in progress with respect to the principal and interest of loans and other creditors, the Plaintiff failed to fully repay obligations to the Plaintiff, and that, in order to avoid the creditors’ compulsory execution with respect to each of the instant lands, a sales contract for each of the instant lands is falsely prepared in collusion with the Defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the Defendant, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant for each of the instant lands

However, the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the main numbers in the case of each number) are insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer of each of the lands of this case, which was made by the plaintiff and the defendant based on the sales contract and the defendant's false declaration of intention, is null and void, and no other evidence exists

Rather, above.