1. The application for participation by an independent party intervenor and the appeal shall be dismissed in all;

2. Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the intervenor's application for intervention by an independent party is legitimate;

A. The Intervenor’s assertion is seeking to Defendant C to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the sales contract on July 2, 2018 regarding each of the instant real estate. However, for the following reasons, each of the instant real estate is not owned by Defendant C but owned by the Intervenor. As such, the Intervenor’s application for participation in the instant independent party is seeking confirmation that each of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is owned by the Intervenor.

① On February 1, 2018, an intervenor entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on each of the instant real estate with Defendant C on February 1, 2018, prepared a sales contract with the purchaser as Defendant C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale to Defendant C.

This is an intermediate omission registration type title trust. Since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C and the change in real rights pertaining to each real estate of this case are null and void pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, each real estate of this case is still owned by the intervenor.

② The Intervenor, who is a partner of Defendant C, induced the Intervenor that “When transferring each of the instant real estate to himself/herself, he/she would be able to obtain the said investment proceeds by changing the name of the investor in the part of the investment amount of KRW 210,00,000, out of the investment amount of his/her scirical wood projects to the Intervenor,” and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by selling each of the instant real estate to Defendant C.

Since the intervenor subsequently expressed his intention to revoke the above sales contract to the defendant C and B in accordance with Article 110 (1) of the Civil Code, the defendant C is named as the part of each real estate of this case.