1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and the claim against the defendant C are dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's defendant B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s wife, and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.

B. The sales contract of October 21, 1996 (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) was prepared on October 21, 1996 with regard to the sale price of KRW 17,500,000 for Defendant D and the buyer as Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant land”). As to the said land on October 21, 1996, the Jeonju District Court: (a) had completed the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name (hereinafter “the instant registration of transfer of ownership”) under the receipt of No. 42548, Oct. 24, 1996, for the reason of sale on October 21, 1996.

C. As to the instant land, on October 6, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed as of October 6, 2016 by the same registry office, which was received on October 6, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant B with the purport that the said Defendant embezzled the pertinent land by completing the registration of transfer of the second ownership of the instant land to Defendant C, while the said Defendant filed a complaint with Defendant B on May 24, 2016 on the charge of embezzlement of the said Defendant (which was recognized as a crime).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 11 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that F purchased the instant land from Defendant D in around 1995, and the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant land under the pretext of accord and satisfaction with respect to the loan obligation worth KRW 250 million borrowed from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff agreed with Defendant D, F, by means of the above transfer of ownership, entered into an agreement with Defendant D on the intermediate omission registration, and immediately from Defendant D, registered the first ownership transfer to Defendant B in the name of Defendant B. As such, the first and second ownership transfer registration in the instant case was in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.