The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

E on January 15, 2009, on behalf of C, D, and F (hereinafter referred to as “C, etc.”), on behalf of the Defendant, concluded a pre-contracted with C, etc. on behalf of the Defendant as to the portion of C, etc. among each real estate listed in Nos. 1 through 7 of the [Attachment] list 1 to 7 of the lower judgment, and entered into a pre-contracted with C, and with respect to the real estate listed in No. 8 of the same list as C owned, the pre-contracted and the pre

(hereinafter referred to as “instant trade reservation” in combination with each of the above trade reservations. (b)

The Defendant completed the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership with respect to the real estate indicated in No. 1-7 of the attached list of the lower judgment on the ground of the instant pre-sale agreement, and the registration of the right to claim transfer with respect to the real estate indicated in No. 8

(hereinafter referred to as the “provisional registration of this case” in addition to each of the above provisional registrations.

C, etc. filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case based on ownership by asserting that E voluntarily completed the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant without authority on January 17, 2011.

On May 25, 2012, the court completed the provisional registration of this case as “E granted the power to dispose of by C, etc.” and dismissed the said claim by deeming it as “the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 14, 2012.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant prior suit”) D.

C et al. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on May 23, 2013, claiming that “the instant provisional registration was made by a forged trade reservation form E and thus null and void, or the instant reservation constitutes both representation and null and void,” against the Defendant, claiming the cancellation of the instant provisional registration based on ownership.

On June 25, 2015, the appellate court of the instant case held that the reservation to sell and purchase the instant case constitutes both representation as stipulated in Article 124 of the Civil Act, but the judgment of the previous suit in the instant case is null and void.