1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion E Co., Ltd. was contracted from D to 400 million won for the construction of a major apartment complex with the 12th floor above the 12th floor above the F of the 1st floor above the 1st century, and G (the Plaintiff’s wife) supplied human resources and materials to the above construction work and received KRW 340,000,000 from the above E, and as a price, the sales contract was prepared between the Plaintiff and D with the amount of money for the above main apartment H (which is the real estate stated in the attached list; hereinafter “instant real estate”).

However, on June 18, 2018, D completed the registration of ownership transfer for the portion of 1/100 of the real estate in this case to Defendant C on the same day, and on the same day D and Defendant C entered into a trust agreement with Defendant B Bank with respect to the real estate in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B Bank.

Thus, the above sales contract between D and Defendant C and the trust contract between Defendant C and Defendant B bank constitutes fraudulent act and fraudulent trust which causes damage to the plaintiff, and thus, it should be revoked. The defendants are obligated to cancel each registration of transfer of ownership as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. The right to revoke a fraudulent act is to prevent the decrease in the debtor's responsible property, which is the joint collateral of the creditor, and thus, the creditor's right to revoke may not be exercised in order to preserve the claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da56690 delivered on April 27, 199). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion itself concerning this case, the Plaintiff exercise the right of revocation against the Defendants in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration against D. Thus, the Plaintiff’s preserved claim constitutes a specific property claim that is the right to claim ownership transfer registration, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.