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 reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “No. 2013da41178” in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant prior suit”) is “No. 2013da41178,” and “the instant prior suit”).

It is the same as the entry of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in case of dismissal, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, even though the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 30 million for the remaining purchase and sale price pursuant to the instant provisional registration several times, B did not pay it, B filed the instant prior lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant provisional registration against B, and subsequently rescinded the instant sales contract on the ground of nonperformance B. The Defendant has an interest in the instant provisional registration, and the Defendant is not a bona fide third party following cancellation under Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, and thus is not a bona fide third party following cancellation under Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff is obligated to express his/her consent regarding the procedure for cancellation

B. As to the gist of the Defendant’s assertion, the instant trade reservation was concluded by the false indication of the conspiracy between the Plaintiff and B, and the Defendant is null and void. The Defendant cannot oppose the invalidity of the instant promise because it constitutes a bona fide third party protected in legal relations with the false indication of conspiracy. Even if the instant promise was rescinded, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant completed the attachment registration prior to the cancellation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration of B arising from the said promise, and thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to express his/her consent regarding the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the aforementioned facts of recognition as to whether the reservation to trade of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, and the overall purport of the testimony and pleading of the witness B of the first instance trial.