1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim is to purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The forest land in the annexed Form No. 1 (hereinafter “instant forest land”) shall be the forest land in the annexed Form No. 1

On April 7, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed by the receipt of the New Registry of the Gwangju District Court in accordance with Article 5377 on April 7, 2017. This is limited to the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”).

(2) On September 18, 2018, the establishment registration of the instant forest was completed on September 18, 2018 by the debtor, the mortgagee, the E-association, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 156 million.

B. On August 21, 2017, such as the change of the nominal owner of the building permit, the owner of the building permit specified in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant building permit”) on the building that was newly constructed in the instant forest was changed from the previous C to the Defendant.

C. On December 19, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) to purchase BMW motor vehicles listed in attached Form 3 (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) at KRW 122 million in its name, and succeeded to the status of the contractor under the lease contract concluded between F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on December 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 12, 13, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including each number, as long as there is no need for classification; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the forest land of this case and the claims related to the building permit of this case

A. On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with C to purchase the right necessary for the construction of the instant forest land and the building that was newly constructed on the land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with KRW 295 million.

The plaintiff, while the divorce lawsuit was pending at the time, is against the defendant to avoid the property division of the forest land of this case.