소유권이전등기
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as to the Defendants, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the fourth judgment of the first instance, the first instance court's conduct 5 to 5 to 10 are as follows:
[1] The following facts are established in light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to a lawsuit; (b) evidence Nos. 17, 26, and 28; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings in this court; and (d) the F Cooperatives filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the Defendants, etc. (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”) with the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court Decision 2015Gahap8317, Feb. 11, 2015; and (c) the Defendants were served with a duplicate of the complaint on March 4, 2015, respectively.
B) In the previous suit of this case, F Cooperatives requested for the cancellation of the registration of each transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants, including the claim identical to the claim in this case, in subrogation of E, and sought for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership on the ground that the act of causing the above transfer of ownership was fraudulent act and its restoration. Meanwhile, E was aware of the fact that the aforementioned lawsuit was filed due to the participation of the conciliation intervenor in the conciliation proceeding in the conciliation proceeding. C) The first instance court of the previous suit of this case dismissed each of the main claims against the Defendants of the F Cooperatives, and sentenced to the Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na2076587, which accepted the conjunctive claim. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na2076587, but the Defendants’ appeal by the Defendants was dismissed on September 6, 2018.