1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs asserted that they purchased 1,369 square meters from Nonparty E prior to the F in Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu.

However, while Nonparty E delayed the implementation under the above sales contract, on March 25, 2016, donated each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendants, and on March 31, 2016, Nonparty E completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the said real estate by the Daegu District Court under Article 3952 to the Defendants on March 31, 2016.

However, the above Defendants’ act constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendants are obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer.

B. In light of the determination, where a creditor claims the revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act, only the revocation of a fraudulent act may be first claimed and then a claim for restitution may be later filed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14108, Sept. 4, 2001). However, insofar as a fraudulent act, which is the premise of restitution, is not revoked, the claim for restitution is not recognized, and thus, it is not possible to seek restitution only without seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and is therefore without merit to further examine the remaining issues. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, even though it is seeking to revoke the ownership transfer registration due to the revocation of fraudulent act’s fraudulent act’s restitution to the original state against the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed since they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.