1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On Sep. 15, 2005, the Preamman Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Preamman”) obtained from C the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on September 6, 2005 with respect to Kimpo-si B large 372.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and on September 15, 2005, on September 14, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer claim based on the promise to trade.

B. On September 15, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Kadan8598 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Kadan8598) that the right to claim restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act as the preserved right; and (b) executed provisional disposition by registering the provisional registration on the 20th of the

C. On February 6, 2007, the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Gahap8504, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant and the smuggling, rendered a compulsory mediation decision on February 6, 2007 that “the Defendant and the smuggling jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff KRW 181 million and its delay damages.” The above decision became final and conclusive on March 7, 2007.

On August 12, 2011, the Defendant was merged with the smuggling.

E. On August 1, 2013, D, the Defendant’s creditor, filed a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on the ground of corporate annexation on August 12, 2011 (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the merger contract and the transfer registration of ownership in this case due to the merger contract between the defendant and the smuggling constitute a juristic act contrary to social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act or a false declaration of conspiracy as stipulated in Article 108 of the Civil Act, and thus, is null and void. The plaintiff's assertion seeks implementation of the transfer registration procedure for the land in this case against the defendant on the ground of the restoration of authentic title in subrogation of the insolvent Slova

B. We examine the judgment, the Plaintiff’s assertion.