1. The part concerning the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act among the lawsuits in this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 25, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 18,000,000 to C with interest rate of KRW 4% per month and November 29, 2011 on the due date.

B. On February 16, 2007, the Defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement and made a provisional registration with C on December 15, 2008, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and entered into a pre-sale agreement with the effect that on December 15, 2008, the said real estate was sold at KRW 260,000,000,000. On the same day, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of the said pre-sale agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that since the non-party C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the aim of evading compulsory execution, the above pre-sale agreement constitutes false representation of conspiracy, the above pre-sale agreement is null and void, or the defendant's completion of provisional registration in collusion with C constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the right to claim transfer of ownership completed in the name of the defendant should be revoked.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be filed within five years from the date of the legal act with respect to a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act. The lawsuit in this case is clearly recorded on February 11, 2014, which was concluded between the defendant and the non-party C, after five years from the date of entering into a pre-contract for sale and purchase concluded between the defendant and the non-party C.

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the fraudulent act among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

B. As to the assertion of invalidity of false conspiracy in collusion, the following facts are recognized in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 1 through 8.

① Since the Defendant would be redevelopment of the daily price of the instant real estate from C, the Defendant proposed to make an investment in the instant real estate, and decided to make an investment in the said real estate jointly with D, E, and F.