1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3.

On March 26, 2013, the Busan District Court Decision 2012Kadan80473, which the Plaintiff filed against C, declared that C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 and delay damages therefor. The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2013.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally registered under C’s name. However, on September 14, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 7, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant registration”).

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since it constitutes a fraudulent act to conclude a sales contract and complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant with the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case, which is one of his own property, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 86,240,667, which is equivalent to the amount of the claim against the plaintiff C according to the judgment of Busan District Court 2012Kadan80473, which is the only property of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the real estate of this case is not a responsible property which becomes a joint security for the general creditors of this case, since the real estate of this case was registered in title C with H around May 2010 by the Dong of C, and it was purchased from H around May 201.

B. In a case where the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applied to the judgment real estate, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the debtor who is the title trustee is null and void, such real estate is not owned by the debtor, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the debtor’s joint collateral for the general creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da55069, Mar. 10, 200).