1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to purchase the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter “instant Housing No. 102”) from C for KRW 140 million.

B. By July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff paid to C a sum of KRW 56.5 million as part of the down payment and intermediate payment pursuant to the above sales contract, but without paying the remainder of the intermediate payment and the remainder, under an agreement with C, the remainder payment date under the above sales contract was from July 15, 2008 to July 25, 2008, again, the same year.

9.1. Each extension was made.

C. C notified the Plaintiff on September 11, 2009, as the Plaintiff did not pay any balance by September 1, 2008 that the final agreement was concluded. D.

On April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for the registration of ownership transfer with Seoul Eastern District Court 201Kadan27203, and on January 30, 2013, the conciliation was concluded including “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 65 million by April 30, 2013.”

E. C, on November 10, 2008, donated each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached list Nos. 1 and (2) to the Defendant, who is the wife (hereinafter “instant donation”). On November 1, 2008, with respect to real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list No. 1 of the attached list to the Defendant, the Seoul East Eastern District Court received the annexed list No. 50320, and with respect to real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list, the registration of ownership transfer

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-3, 4, and 6 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant's judgment as to the exclusion period of the defendant's assertion was made on July 2, 2008, because the plaintiff was acting as a broker for the sale and purchase of the same house No. 101, which was owned by C around July 2, 2008 and No. 102 of the same house No. 101, which became known around that time. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed one year after that time is illegal.