1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and this case is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the court of first instance excluding to dismiss or delete some content as follows.

2. The 5th to 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as follows. The 5th to 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as follows. The 5th of the judgment of first instance shall be “(B)”, and the 5th and 16th of the 5th shall be “this court” as “the first instance court.”

“A) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of determining whether the requirements for fraudulent act are met, the establishment of the fraudulent act should be determined based on the time of the instant provisional registration and the registration of transfer based on the instant provisional registration, and thus, constitutes the same legal act.

(Defendant’s preparatory brief dated September 5, 2017). As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that since the instant promise to sell and purchase and the sales contract was clearly different due to separate lending or monetary transactions, it should be separately determined on the basis of both the instant promise to sell and purchase and the sales contract as of September 5, 201.

(Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated September 21, 2017). Accordingly, this paper examines the establishment of fraudulent act in relation to the transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case from the base point of time of determining whether the requirements are met.

Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of a provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration and the juristic act which is the cause of a principal registration are clearly different, the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration shall not be deemed to constitute a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24960, Dec. 21, 2006). In this case, whether the requirements for a fraudulent act are satisfied is the cause of a provisional registration.