A. On February 3, 199, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from D for KRW 25,500,000 (hereinafter “instant purchase”) and paid the full amount of the purchase price to D on the same day.

On February 4, 1999, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land (hereinafter “registration of ownership”).

B. On February 23, 1999, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of this case on February 19, 1999, which was based on the trade reservation.

C. The Plaintiff has a certificate of registration right and a provisional registration right to the land of this case, and paid property tax on the land.

【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 5, and 6

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case as follows.

The Plaintiff completed the provisional registration of this case in order to secure the Defendant’s loan claims after paying to the seller the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the land of this case from the Defendant, and repaid the full amount of the loan obligation until October 26, 2005.

(P) The Defendant did not exercise the right to complete the contract from February 20, 2004, which was the period for exercising the right to complete the contract, even if the obligation was not repaid, and the statute of limitations expired due to the Defendant’s failure to exercise the right to complete the contract.

(Preliminary argument). (b)

Defendant did not lend the purchase price of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant land, and completed the instant ownership registration only to the Plaintiff. However, the instant provisional registration was made in order to prevent the Plaintiff from taking a voluntary measure.

3. Determination

A. As to the primary argument, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the primary argument does not conflict between the parties concerned with the fact that the amount equivalent to the sales price of the instant case was received from the Defendant and paid to D.

After the sale of the above facts, the Plaintiff.