1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

In full view of the facts without dispute, the entries in Gap 2-1 and 2-2 and the overall purport of the pleadings, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 30, 1990 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant real estate"), and on March 9, 2012, it is recognized that the Seoul East Eastern District Court promised to sell the instant real estate to the defendant, who is the child of March 9, 2012, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the defendant under the Songdong District Court No. 12555 received on March 9, 2012.

The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the instant claim is the cause of the instant claim. C, on September 6, 201, issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note 1, which is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment and the place of payment, and the place of payment, on December 26, 2011. Since C, on March 9, 201, made a promise to sell the instant real estate, which is the only property of C, and completed provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer registration, the said promise to sell the said real estate to the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff, on March 9, 2012, who is the sole property of C, and the provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer registration, by asserting that the said promise constitutes a fraudulent act that changes the instant real property belonging to the general property of the general creditor, including the Plaintiff, into money easily for consumption of the said real property, the said promise to sell is sought against the Defendant and the provisional

Therefore, upon examining whether C issued a promissory note which causes 50 million won per face value to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the said promissory note, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the issuance of the said promissory note. Rather, according to the descriptions in B 1 and 2, the Plaintiff issued to C one promissory note with each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment and place of payment, and place of payment, respectively, to the Plaintiff.