The Defendants jointly share KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B shall be from December 5, 2019 to July 2, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants are married in a marital relationship. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 250 million to Defendant B on the same day, and on the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a joint neighboring building with the maximum debt amount of KRW 390,000,000,000,000 for D and 120.3 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. The instant real estate was owned by Defendant C’s living Dong E (the deceased on February 5, 2019; hereinafter “the deceased”) and the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 15, 2014 under Defendant B’s name on August 26, 2014.

C. On November 1, 2017, the Deceased filed a lawsuit (this Court Decision 2017Da234906) against Defendant B and the Plaintiff on November 15, 2017, on the grounds that, although the Deceased did not have concluded a sales contract with Defendant B on the instant real estate, the registration of transfer of ownership should be cancelled as a cause for invalidation of the registration of transfer of ownership, and the Plaintiff asserted that a third party with interest in the registration has a duty to accept the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership (this Court Decision 2017No234906). This Court decided on November 8, 2018 that the sale contract as of July 15, 2014 between the deceased and the Defendant was arbitrarily signed and sealed in the sales contract without due authority by stating that the Defendant B is holding the deceased’s seal imprint, and ultimately, the registration of transfer of ownership in the instant real estate was null and void based on the sales contract that forged the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B, and that the Plaintiff declared the registration of transfer of ownership as a third party.

Defendant B and the Plaintiff are dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance court, and this Court of Appeals.