1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, with respect to the instant real estate, the purchase and sale reservation entered into on June 30, 201 between the Defendant and B, to secure B’s obligation to the Defendant, but the sale and purchase contract entered into on May 18, 2012, would substitute for the repayment of obligation to B to the Defendant. As such, the instant case argues to the effect that whether the legal act, which is the cause of provisional registration, and the legal act, which is the cause of principal registration, meet the requirements for fraudulent act should be determined at the time of the legal act, not provisional registration, at the time of the cause of principal registration

In a case where the principal registration has been completed on the basis of a provisional registration, whether the requirements for a fraudulent act are satisfied should be determined at the time of the juristic act which caused a provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration and the legal act which is the cause of a principal registration are clearly different.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da14079 Decided November 8, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1518 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). However, according to each description of evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 3, as to the instant real estate, the Defendant applied for the registration of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer on July 8, 201, stating “the pre-sale agreement on June 30, 201” as the grounds for registration, while applying for the registration of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer on May 18, 2012, if the Defendant applied for the registration of the main right to transfer ownership transfer on May 18, 2012, it may be recognized as the grounds for registration, but only by itself, it is difficult to view that the legal act, which is the cause of provisional registration, is clearly different from the legal act that is the cause of the principal registration. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.