1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff's spouse C guaranteed the child's debt, but became liable for a large amount of debt, and died on September 8, 2008.

On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on August 4, 2008 with respect to each of the instant real estate in the future of the Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment.

On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on D Apartment 402 (hereinafter referred to as “D apartment”) with respect to the remaining apartment in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day, which is the maximum debt amount of the Defendant 60 million won.

On March 16, 2009, the Defendant cancelled the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

When the spouse bears a guarantee obligation of approximately KRW 1.2 billion, the Plaintiff decided to sell each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in a false manner in order to avoid compulsory execution, and completed the registration of this case in the future of the Defendant.

Therefore, since the registration of this case is null and void, the defendant should implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the statement in the evidence No. 3-1 through 3-3, and the purport of witness E’s testimony and pleading, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant in consultation with the Defendant in a de facto marital relationship. However, E present in this court testified that E did not memory the process of the transfer of the said real estate.

② From August 8, 2008 to August 22, 2008, Defendant and E paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff with the purchase price of each of the instant real estate.

The plaintiff.