1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's defendants added to the trial room.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 27, 2007, the registration of transfer of ownership in the purport of the claim in B’s name (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”) was made with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) owned by E.

B. On February 17, 2009, Defendant C and D made their joint creditors with respect to the instant apartment on their own, and the debtor made a registration of creation of a mortgage on the purport of the claim KRW 200 million (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant apartment”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) Determination as to the claim for the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration is based on the title trust, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Plaintiff B is legally null and void. The Defendants, who completed the registration of ownership transfer in the instant case based on the above ownership transfer registration, should express their consent to the registration of cancellation. 2) According to Article 4(3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the invalidation of title trust registration cannot be asserted against a third party.

Therefore, even if the registration of ownership transfer of this case was made under a title trust, the Defendants cannot assert that the registration of ownership transfer of this case was made based on that registration, and thus, the Defendants did not have any obligation to express their consent to the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer of this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

B. 1) Determination on the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual debtor of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case is F rather than B. The Defendants, in collusion with B, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case where the debtor is B.