1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff, the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) under the name of the Defendant (the wife of the Plaintiff C), which was the cause of sale on July 24, 2015. The fact is that this constitutes a false representation, and the above sales contract is null and void as a false representation. As such, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer for the reason of restoration in the name of the Plaintiff, instead of cancelling the registration under the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination: The instant lawsuit goes against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit.

A. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration made in the name of the Defendant in relation to the instant building as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Da36399, which became final and conclusive on July 28, 2015, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 2017 upon the judgment against the Defendant.

(B) A claim was made on the ground that the Plaintiff made an onerous donation.

On the other hand, the final judgment of the previous suit is the case of the claim for the registration of cancellation. The subject matter of the claim for the registration of cancellation is the right to claim for the registration of cancellation, and individual grounds supporting the invalidation of the cause for registration are merely independent means of attack and defense, and it does not constitute a separate cause of claim. Thus, all the grounds alleged in the previous suit or the subsequent suit alleged by the plaintiff in the previous suit are merely the means of attack supporting the invalidation of the cause for registration, and their arguments cannot be deemed to constitute a separate cause of claim as their own, and all all the grounds arising before the closing of argument in the previous suit cannot be viewed as a separate cause of action.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da11050 delivered on June 29, 1993.