1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul E Apartment 2, 806, the lease deposit of KRW 150 million from Nonparty C. On November 21, 2011, the lease deposit was increased to KRW 160 million.

On January 21, 2014, the Defendant purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet from C in the purchase price of KRW 413 million (hereinafter “instant purchase”). On January 23, 2014, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) under the receipt of the ownership transfer as of January 23, 2014.

On the other hand, C applied for individual rehabilitation on October 8, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma18693, and the individual rehabilitation procedure commenced on April 25, 2014. The Plaintiff’s above lease deposit repayment claim is included in the above individual rehabilitation claim, and the above individual rehabilitation procedure is still in progress.

After the commencement of the above individual rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that the sales contract of this case was a fraudulent act and sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case by the cancellation of the sales contract of this case and restitution of its original state, which is significant facts in this court, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was null and void due to a title trust agreement between the Defendant and Nonparty F, and sought the cancellation of the instant transfer of ownership by subrogation of C.

Judgment

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Articles 584, 347(1) and 406 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, upon revocation of a fraudulent act, the debtor exercises the right to set aside after a decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure is rendered, and the court shall exercise the right to set aside by the creditor or the rehabilitation commissioner.