1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the demand case filed against B and two others on October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff received a decision on the payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 tea160828) stating, “The debtor jointly and severally pays to the creditor 20,482,740 won and 20,249,731 won which is calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from September 24, 1999 to the date of full payment” (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 tea160828). The above payment order was finalized on December 28, 2010.

B. B is the owner of 1/2 share (hereinafter “instant share”) out of 2,050 square meters in Naju-si, E, and the Defendant completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) with the Jeju District Court’s Jeju District Court’s registry office on December 6, 2005 on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of December 6, 2005 with respect to the instant share (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).

C. On February 24, 2016, the Defendant completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case (hereinafter “the principal registration of this case”) with respect to the instant shares on the ground of sale (transaction price of KRW 8,500,000) as of February 17, 2016, the Gwangju District Court Naju Branch Office (No. 4948, Feb. 24, 2016), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares on the same day D on the ground of sale (transaction price of KRW 10,000,000) as of February 18, 2016 (transaction price of KRW 10,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The provisional registration of this case’s assertion is a registration completed by false declaration of conspiracy. Even if it is not a household, the provisional registration of this case’s assertion is a provisional registration of security, and the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation has expired or the right to complete the pre-contract, which serves as the cause, has expired due to the expiration of the exclusion period.

Therefore, since the principal registration of this case is invalid, the plaintiff is entitled to return unjust enrichment to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff in subrogation, which the defendant acquired from the disposition of the share in this case, as well as KRW 10,000.