1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the sales contract among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff except the above dismissed part.

1. On June 22, 2011, Nonparty E Co., Ltd. lent KRW 64,516,693 to Nonparty C, and Nonparty D jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of Nonparty C, while the Plaintiff acquired the loan claim of E Co., Ltd.

C and D completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of all co-owners' shares on the same day on the grounds of the pre-sale agreement on April 26, 2013 with respect to the real estate owned by them (hereinafter "the instant real estate"), and completed the registration of the transfer of all co-owners' shares on June 7, 2013 on the grounds of sale and purchase (hereinafter "the instant sales agreement") on June 7, 2013. However, the instant sales agreement is null and void as it is a false declaration of intent made in collusion with the Defendant for the evasion of compulsory execution under excess of obligation C and D, and the Defendant is unable to dispose of the instant real estate and refund its original property, and thus, it shall be paid to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 59 million, which is equivalent to the value thereof.

2. Of the instant lawsuits that determine the claim for cancellation of a sales contract, the part of the instant lawsuit claiming cancellation of the sales contract constitutes a formative action.

A lawsuit for alteration of legal relations and formation of a legal relationship can be brought only where there is a express provision in law (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45020, Jan. 16, 2001). On the first date for pleading, the Plaintiff clearly stated that the cause of claim in the instant case is not seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, but the purchase and sale contract is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, and any juristic act constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy.

Even if there is no legal ground for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit seeking revocation, the part on the claim for revocation of the sales contract in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff regarding the portion of the claim for monetary payment alone is that the instant sales contract was a false conspiracy made between the Defendant, C and D.