beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements as evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3-1, and 2-2.
D and E were originally owned by Nonparty C. However, on January 26, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased from Nonparty C KRW 1,200 from Nonparty C for KRW 78,00,000 for the purchase price of KRW 78,00,000 for D forest land, and April 24, 2007 for E from April 24, 2007 (the first sale object was 2,000 out of the said J forest but later changed into E forest) for KRW 130,00 for the purchase of KRW 130,00 for each purchase.
B. After that, on September 10, 201, on the application of G and H, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding each forest of D and E, the procedure for the auction of real estate was initiated on September 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
C. In the instant auction procedure, Defendant B purchased each forest land D and E on February 18, 201, and completed each registration of ownership transfer as the Ulsan District Court’s receipt No. 14982 on February 18, 201 with respect to D forest land, and as the Ulsan District Court’s receipt No. 14983 on February 18, 2011 with respect to E forest land, and completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to Defendant Asian Trust on the same day as the Ulsan District Court’s receipt No. 14986 on February 18, 2011.
2. The plaintiff's judgment as to the cause of the claim is that the non-party C falsely increases the claim amount of G and H's right to collateral security, and caused the plaintiff to file an application for auction based on the right to collateral security by failing to repay its debts intentionally. The defendant B knowingly purchased part of the forest land D and E, and actively participated in the non-party C's act of breach of trust in the auction procedure of this case by purchasing the forest land above in this case. Thus, the purchase of the forest land above and the registration of transfer of ownership in its name constitutes an anti-social juristic act. Accordingly, the defendant B's act of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant B is null and void.