1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parts to be dried or added are as follows: 4 to 7 pages 9 (hereinafter “A part”).

“A. The establishment date of the sales contract for each of the instant real estates 1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the sales contract for each of the instant real estates was not concluded on March 30, 2015, and that the sales contract for each of the instant real estates was effective on December 4, 2014, rather than on March 30, 2015.

2) Determination A) Whether there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act at any time should be determined with caution, taking into account the significant impact on the interests between the parties, and whether the legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act was at any time should be determined on the basis of the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145, Jul. 26, 2002), barring any special circumstances, it is inevitable to determine whether such fraudulent act was actually committed based on the date on which the reason for registration appears based on the disposal document, barring any other special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da41589, Nov. 8, 2002; 2007Da28819, 28826, Feb. 25, 2010). Meanwhile, the presumption of registration is presumed to have been a juristic act that causes registration on the date of registration on the registry, as the presumption of registration is not based on the grounds for registration, and the party asserting that there was a juristic act on another date bears the burden of proof on the actual date.

B. According to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 9 and 14, the defendant and D with A on December 4, 2014.