1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On January 14, 2014, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on the real estate listed in the separate list of the basic facts (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

D As to the instant real estate on the same day, on January 13, 2014, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed, and the said provisional registration was transferred to E, F, and G, and the Defendant was transferred on December 1, 2016.

Based on the above provisional registration, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 2, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 2

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the creditor of the limited liability company C, and the real estate of this case is the only property of the above company.

However, on January 13, 2014, the above company entered into a pre-sale agreement with D as to the instant real property, the sole property of which is the instant real property, which is a fraudulent act, which reduces the liability property of the general creditor.

Therefore, the above reservation should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

The defendant knowingly received the above provisional registration and completed the principal registration of transfer of ownership by taking over the above provisional registration, and the defendant, as a malicious subsequent purchaser, is obligated to implement the above provisional registration and the cancellation registration of principal registration to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The parties to the speculative act alleged by the Plaintiff are D with limited liability companies, and the other party to the revocation of the fraudulent act is D, which is a malicious beneficiary. Therefore, the Defendant, who is merely a subsequent purchaser, cannot seek revocation of the fraudulent act. 2) The preserved claim for the fraudulent act should have been established prior to the occurrence of the fraudulent act.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the limited liability company C on April 24, 2014, and the promise to sell and purchase between the company and D on January 13, 2014.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is established after the promise to sell and purchase on January 13, 2014, and cannot be the preserved claim for fraudulent act.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.