1. The part concerning Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of this Court’s judgment as to the facts of recognition and the claim against Defendant B is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserts that on February 11, 2010, Defendant C agreed to transfer each of the shares of the instant real estate to Defendant B as payment in substitutes, and Defendant B did not exercise the right to claim the ownership transfer registration under the said payment in substitutes agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff, the obligee, subrogationing Defendant B, sought the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure regarding each of the shares of the instant real estate to Defendant C as to each of the shares of 1/2 of the instant real estate.

Defendant C asserts that Defendant C did not have a duty to transfer 1/2 shares of the instant real estate to Defendant B, as the instant confirmation document was prepared on March 16, 2011 and the existing arrangement was invalidated by a new agreement.

B. The facts acknowledged prior to the determination and the following circumstances are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 24, Eul evidence Nos. 28, Eul evidence Nos. 17, Eul evidence Nos. 21, Eul evidence Nos. 24 and Eul evidence Nos. 28, and Eul evidence Nos. 28, i.e., ① although there is no express provision on the confirmation of this case to invalidate the agreement on the payment in kind, the Incheon District Court 2010Kadan4123, which was made based on the agreement on the payment in kind, and the provisional disposition under the provisional disposition Nos. 2010Kahap423, which was made based on the provisional disposition No. 2010Kahap423, and agreed to withdraw the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration, which is the main lawsuit. ② According to the confirmation of this case, if the defendant Eul couples of this case acknowledged that the defendant Eul has a share of 30% of the total profits arising from the sale, investment, and other businesses of this case.