1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the part written by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below.

2. The third column, the third column, the third column, the fifth column, and the fifth column, of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be replaced by the “spouse”.

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by "the full-time system" in Part 15.

In the first instance judgment, Article 19 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as follows: “The defendant argues that the part of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant is unlawful because he/she has no preserved claim against a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit (the defendant does not have preserved claim against the defendant).” However, the existence of preserved claim against a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit is not a litigation requirement, and the above argument is without merit).

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance can be recognized as "..............." against this, the provision of evidence No. 14 is changed to that of "..........."

In the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E, which is the Plaintiff’s seat with respect to 1/2 shares out of the attached list No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed. The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on July 29, 2011 is the joint ownership of each of the instant real estate and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the registration was made in the sole name of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff). The Plaintiff did not take any different measures against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the lawsuit for ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Kadan108214).

A change to “......” No. 6 of the first instance judgment, “Agreement,” is deleted.

The judgment of the court of first instance is written.