1. The part concerning the claim for the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration is legitimate

A. On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s donation of real estate stated in the purport of the claim to D to D would interfere with the Plaintiff’s preservation of claims against the Defendant and added the purport of seeking cancellation of the registration. We examine the legitimacy of the relevant part.

B. A lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration relating to real estate is filed against the person liable for registration. As such, the part claiming the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration added against the Defendant C is unlawful as it is against the person who is not the

In addition, the purport of the claim also includes the purport of seeking cancellation to D, but D is not the defendant at the time of filing the lawsuit, but it also seems possible to correct or add the defendant to D while the lawsuit is pending. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is unlawful as it is against the non-defendant.

C. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim is understood as a creditor’s revocation lawsuit pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff does not separately seek revocation of the legal act through the purport of the claim, and the revocation of the fraudulent act is limited to a malicious beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser, and cannot be exercised against the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1839, Dec. 26, 1967). Since D cannot seek revocation against the Defendant, who is the obligor, and as seen earlier, is the same as seen earlier, that the Defendant is not the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s revocation is not unlawful.

(The plaintiff asserts the possibility and necessity of provisional seizure, but the legitimacy of the above part of the claim is separate) 3. Judgment by public notice on monetary payment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

4. In conclusion, the claim for the execution of the cancellation registration procedure in the instant lawsuit is filed.