1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is dismissed, respectively.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 13, 2011, the Defendants and C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking the return of the deposit amount as Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap107592 on the premise that the Plaintiff is a joint owner of D and D.

(hereinafter referred to as “principal case”). (b)

On September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment No. 1 and 901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment with respect to F on July 30, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim with respect to the instant apartment with respect to F on August 11, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim with respect to F on August 11, 2011.

C. On December 14, 201, in the first instance trial of the instant case, the Defendants filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for provisional registration and provisional disposition prohibiting the provisional disposition of collateral security (No. 201Kadan7947) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of establishing provisional registration and collateral security on the instant apartment to F, one of his relatives, constitutes a fraudulent act against ordinary creditors including the Defendants, and that the right to claim the establishment of provisional registration and the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of establishment of collateral security is a preserved right, and received a provisional disposition from the said court on December 22, 2011.

(hereinafter “instant provisional disposition”). D.

1) The Defendants filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of fraud and violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. On August 31, 2010, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office”) handed down a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff’s fraud (However, the grounds for the non-prosecution are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s name in the process of operating the system by D