1. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant and Nonparty C made a reservation to trade the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she is responsible for the management and supervision of the sinking of a ship that occurred on or around January 201, and filed a lawsuit for damages against C on June 22, 2015 with the Busan District Court 2015Gahap4796, and on July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from June 4, 2015 to July 20, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on August 9, 2016.

B. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement with C on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and made a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) completed on April 17, 2015 by the Busan District Court, Busan District Court’s District Court’s receipt of April 17, 2015.

C. Insolvent C was the only real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate, while at the same time, C was in excess of its liability, such as the registration of provisional attachment by DF and the registration of seizure by the Busan Metropolitan City Young-do, each of which was completed, with respect to the instant real estate at KRW 150 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13 through 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On September 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only on November 22, 2017, where one year has passed since the Plaintiff, despite having been aware of the existence of the instant provisional registration in the course of attempting to enforce compulsory execution on the instant real estate. This is unlawful as a lawsuit filed with the exclusion period excessive.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) No. 3, which seems consistent with the Defendant’s above assertion, is hard to believe in light of the relationship between E, the original and the Defendant, etc.; and (b) Nos. 1 and 2.