1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim in the appellate court are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, based on the facts, has a claim for reimbursement equivalent to KRW 272,439,218 for B and its delay damages.

(See Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap543406, Apr. 15, 2008). Meanwhile, around April 15, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract to purchase the forest land of this case from the Hyundai Electoral Association Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Modern Co., Ltd.”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in E’s name in a relationship with the Defendant.

The purchase price for the forest of this case was paid from the passbook in the name of the E F, and the Hyundai Pamp was aware of all these circumstances.

With respect to the forest land of this case, the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the name B around April 21, 2008.

After that, on July 24, 2013, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of the instant forest in the Defendant’s name was completed, and around December 6, 2013, the registration of provisional seizure was completed with B as the debtor, the Plaintiff as the creditor.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 through 6, Eul 1 through 13, witness D, Eul, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a third party under Article 4(3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), which is a creditor who completed the provisional attachment registration in the instant woodland, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot assert that the instant transfer registration in the name B is null and void pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Real Estate Real Name Act.

Therefore, in relation to the Plaintiff, the instant forest contract concluded regarding the instant forest, which is the property of general creditors’ joint collateral, is a fraudulent act, and the registration of establishment of the instant mortgage in the name of the Defendant should be cancelled.

In addition, the defendant did not have any claim against B, and completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant, which is invalid registration.

A person who held title trust with the forest land of this case to B is not the defendant but E, and the defendant is in B.