1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C is the executor (seller) of the construction of the main complex building on the 7th floor above Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant building”), E is the contractor of the said construction work, the contractor of the said construction work, and the ASEAN Co., Ltd. is the investor of the said construction, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter each of the above stock companies is omitted).

B. On January 20, 2014, the registration of registration of ownership preservation and prohibited matters (it shall not be permitted to establish a limited real right, or to impose restrictions on ownership, such as seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc., on the pertinent housing without the consent of the prospective occupant) was completed on the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, a part of the instant building (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. On February 14, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”) on the ground of sale on December 6, 2013.

On December 30, 2014, the horizontal Housing Site Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim for ownership transfer registration, and the appeal against the above disposition was dismissed for the same reason.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 17 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 9 through 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is the buyer who lawfully concluded a sales contract with C as the developer for the instant real estate and paid part payments until the intermediate payment.

However, the defendant actively participated in C's breach of trust and concluded double sales contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case. Such sales contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order.

In addition, this shall not apply.