1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a sales contract on May 30, 2007 with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 31st day of the same month, while owning a building site for the building of 21 square meters in 10,000 in 21,00 in 21,000 in 21,00 in 21,00 in 21,00 in 21,000 in 200,000 in 200,000

B. On April 30, 2015, D completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant housing with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and E completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant housing on December 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2015.

C. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff, in the instant lawsuit, completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 6, 2017 with respect to the instant housing by the intervenors.

Until now, the defendant occupies the house of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 12 and 13 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor purchased the instant house from the Plaintiff and lawfully holds its ownership, and thus, the Intervenor seeks the delivery of the instant house against the Defendant who occupies the instant house without any authority.

B. G, the actual representative of the Defendant’s assertion E, concluded with the Plaintiff on the instant housing in the name of E for the purpose of embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the instant housing or the purchase price thereof, and transferred the ownership thereof to the Plaintiff. This constitutes an act of breach of trust against E. Since the Plaintiff actively participated in the act of breach of trust in the above G’s above act of violation of trust, the above sales contract constitutes an anti-social juristic act, and even if not, it is invalid as a false declaration

Therefore, as long as the registration of ownership transfer that was completed in the future of the plaintiff on the instant housing is null and void, the intervenor.