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 court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the plaintiff’s argument added in the trial of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of “additional Judgment” as to the argument added in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 15th unit "Resan District Court" shall be deemed to be the dong Branch of the Busan District Court.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that "in a lawsuit for collection, the existence of the claim for collection (in this case, the right to claim the purchase price against the defendant who is the 1/3 equity right holder of the building of this case) is a requisite fact, and the burden of proof exists against the plaintiff. The sales contract between the defendant and C seems to be merely a ground for registration for completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, and it is difficult to view that there is a claim for collection," and therefore, even if there is no claim for collection, the sales contract between C and the defendant, who is the 1/3 equity right holder of the building of this case, constitutes a false declaration of intention under Article 108 of the Civil Code. The false declaration of the above conspiracy, cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is a bona fide third party. Thus, the defendant still has the obligation

B. The expression of false declaration in collusion with the other party is null and void and, in principle, anyone can assert the invalidity thereof. However, with respect to a third party in good faith who has been in good faith and has established a new legal interest on the basis of the legal relationship formed by a false representation, as well as the party concerned with the false representation, anyone who has entered into such new legal interest cannot oppose the invalidation of the false representation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da12074 delivered on April 26, 1996). The false representation is against the third party in good faith.