1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiffs, as married couple, sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet jointly owned by them (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On July 27, 2009, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of the transfer of co-owners’ shares (hereinafter “instant co-ownership transfer”) in the name of E (hereinafter “instant co-ownership transfer”).

B. On November 27, 2009, E completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer of this case”) in the F, one’s wife, with respect to the instant real estate on November 10, 2009, on the grounds of sale and purchase as of November 10, 2009.

C. As above, the owner of the instant registration of ownership transfer in the future EF, Defendant C filed an application for provisional injunction against disposal of the instant real estate with F as the right to claim cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer due to the revocation of the fraudulent act on the ground that “E sells the instant real estate, which is its sole property, to F, its wife, and completing the registration of ownership transfer,” with the position of monetary creditor against E, and the above court rendered a provisional injunction against disposal of the instant real estate on December 23, 2009, and the provisional injunction against disposal was completed on the same day.

On February 4, 2010, after the completion of the provisional disposition registration, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against E and F with the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2010Gahap485 on February 4, 2010, demanding the implementation of each of the registration procedures for the registration for the transfer of co-ownership and the cancellation of ownership transfer. The Plaintiffs asserted as the cause of the claim that “E purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff did not pay a part of the purchase price to the Plaintiffs, and the sales contract between E and F is null and void as a false declaration.” The E and F did not dispute the above assertion by the Plaintiffs.