1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “32,00,000 won for payment at the time of contract”) and KRW 332,000,000 for 332,000 for down payment, KRW 30,000 for down payment, and KRW 30,000 for 10 for 332,000 for 4,000 for 5,000 for 5,000 for 3332,00 for 30,000 for 30,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 332,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 3,00

2. The reasoning for the court’s argument concerning this part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception that each “sale price” as stated in the 4th and 21th written judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in each sales contract, and the 5th and 3th written judgment is as follows: “Defendant C shall be jointly and severally with the co-defendant M of the court of first instance”; and the 4th and 5th and 16th each “by the date of rendering the judgment of this case” is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that each “by the date of rendering the judgment of the court of first instance” is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Determination

A. The claim for cancellation of a fraudulent act and the claim for cancellation of a sales contract and the claim for cancellation of a sales contract between Defendant C and D among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful for the following reasons. The claim for cancellation of a transfer of ownership and the claim for cancellation of a transfer of ownership as stated in the claim is unlawful:

(1) Unless a juristic act which is the cause of provisional registration and a juristic act which is the cause of principal registration are clearly different, the initial date of a claim for exclusion period, such as cancellation of a fraudulent act against the cause of provisional registration and principal registration, shall be the time when the act of causing provisional registration is known

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24960, Dec. 21, 2006). With respect to the instant case, the Health Center and the Plaintiff knew that the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed under the name of D, and met with the Defendants and D.