1.(a)

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant B shall be revoked.

B. Defendant B shall enter Defendant C in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building from Defendant C, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) at KRW 300,000,000 monthly rent, and thereafter, used the instant commercial building for the entrance of the Plaintiff’s healthcare room on the same floor.

B. On June 15, 2015, Defendant C sold the instant commercial building in KRW 27 million to Defendant B, and on June 19, 2015, Defendant C made a registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) under Article 98212 on the receipt of the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Support for the reason of sale and purchase on the instant commercial building.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments regarding the cause of the claim

A. On January 17, 2015, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff purchased the instant commercial building from Defendant C in the amount of KRW 20 million; and (b) paid KRW 10 million as down payment and intermediate payment; (c) the remainder of KRW 10 million concluded a sales contract with Defendant C’s property to succeed to the obligations of loans granted from Defendant C in the Daegu Western Credit Cooperative; (d) around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million as down payment and intermediate payment.

However, even though Defendant C concluded a sales contract as above with the Plaintiff, it sold the instant commercial building twice again to Defendant B, Defendant B was aware of the fact that the instant commercial building was sold first to the Plaintiff, but Defendant C actively participated in the act of breach of trust of Defendant C and concluded a sales contract again and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

Therefore, the sales contract between Defendant C and Defendant B is null and void as an anti-social legal act.

Thus, as to the shopping mall of this case, Defendant B shall register the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case to Defendant C, and Defendant C shall be the Plaintiff.