1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2012, Nonparty C completed the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of a sales contract on November 1, 201 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Defendant.

B. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to revoke the instant sales contract by Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap21890, and to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”), and received the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on July 10, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that it is impossible for the plaintiff to file an application for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to real estate in the attached list because it was impossible for the plaintiff to obtain the consent of a third party who is a third party with interest in the register, and thus, it is again possible to seek implementation of the procedure

3. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s principal safety defense, the Defendant had already been rendered a favorable judgment by demanding the Plaintiff to cancel the ownership transfer registration due to the revocation of the fraudulent act in the previous suit, and the judgment became final and conclusive, the subsequent suit claiming the registration of ownership transfer of the true title recovery based on the revocation of the fraudulent act asserts that it goes against the res judicata effect of

On the other hand, in case where a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution has already been filed and the judgment in favor of the original state became final and conclusive, the subsequent lawsuit cannot be said to have a benefit in the protection of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54978, Dec. 7, 2006). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff against the Defendant.