1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence examined in the court of first instance shows the evidence presented in the records, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following phrases, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The addition;

A. To add the following words to the last sentence of the third of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, according to Article 4(3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the invalidation of a title trust agreement and any change in real rights to real estate made by the registration following the title trust agreement cannot be set up against a third party. Here, “third party” is not only a party to a title trust agreement and a person other than a general successor, who directly has a new interest with him/her on the basis that the title trustee is a real right holder, but also a person who has acquired a real right, such as ownership or mortgage, and is also a seizure or provisional seizure creditor, but also a bona fide and bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107068

The following phrases shall be added to the phrase “I do not exist,” which is the third fifth of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate of this case, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed in the name of C based on the original copy of judgment No. C, and accordingly, the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued to Incheon District Court D on June 16, 2016 and completed the compulsory auction registration for the real estate of this case on the same day.

Thus, the defendant is "third party" as referred to in Article 4 (3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name.