The defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration based on a sales contract was asserted.

The above court on December 9, 2008 held that the reservation of this case was made on October 15, 1997.

The contract of this case is concluded upon completion of the contract, and therefore the right of completion of the contract is therefore established.

The argument of the 000 Fund on the premise that it has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the period of operation is without merit.

A judgment to dismiss a claim from 000 Fund was pronounced, and the above judgment was affirmed on January 1, 2009.

was determined.

G. Tax claims related to the registration of seizure on February 11, 1998 by the Plaintiff are as of October 25, 2017

126,405,300 won, which is currently in excess of the positive property.

A. The instant real estate is located adjacent to India, and its neighboring commercial buildings have been located adjacent to the past.

It is used as a parking space for building users.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 9 (including paper numbers), Eul 1, 2, 3, 5 through 15, 17 through 20

Each entry of evidence (including paper numbers), the tax information inquiry results of 00 :00 :00 :00,000 of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Ten years have passed since October 13, 1989, the Defendant’s right to complete the reservation based on the instant trade reservation.

On October 13, 1999, the exclusion period was expired, and thus, the provisional registration of this case was null and void.

As such, the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case to the defendant in subrogation of Park 00.

2) Even if not, the Defendant’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant sales contract.

the extinctive prescription of October 15, 2007 has expired after the expiration of the ten-year period from October 15, 1997; and

As such, the provisional registration of this case is null and void, the plaintiff is the defendant in subrogation of Park 00.

The cancellation of provisional registration shall be sought.

B. Determination

1) As to the claim for cancellation of provisional registration based on the exclusion period limit and the limitation period of the right to complete reservation

According to the above facts, the defendant's exclusion period from October 13, 1989 to ten years has elapsed.

On October 15, 1997, the previous Doz. exercised the right to complete the reservation based on the reservation of this case to Doz. 00,

As a result, the sales contract of this case was established.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) The part demanding cancellation of provisional registration on the ground of expiration of extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration

According to the above facts, the defendant's transfer of ownership based on the sales contract of this case to Park 00

The extinctive prescription point is October 15, 1997 with a claim for registration.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, i.e., the Defendant around January 1998:

Under the premise that both the purchase price and the purchase price have been settled, the final ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant

It appears that the intention of transferring the right is to issue a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale, and 2.00

A real estate transfer report prepared by a certified judicial scrivener around February 1998 is submitted to the competent administrative agency.

The acquisition tax on the real estate of this case appears to have been imposed on the defendant around March 1998, and 3. The defendant was imposed on him on him on the premise that the defendant acquired the real estate of this case around February 1998.

The acquisition tax on the real estate in the case and the property tax on the property in the year 1998 through 2004 shall have been paid.

4. The real estate of this case is located adjacent to its delivery and has long been located adjacent to its neighboring commercial buildings until now.

Site used as a parking space for building users, etc., from the Defendant Park 00

It does not seem that there were any particular obstacles to the transfer of possession, and 5.00 after February 1998, it did not deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant without delivering it to the defendant.

The circumstance that continued possession or the defendant's right to claim ownership transfer registration seems to exist.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant does not pay for the KRW 00 on February 1998, the Defendant settled the accounts of Park 00 and the sales amount, and 00.

It is reasonable to view that the real estate of this case has been transferred and has been continuously possessed until now.

C. (The property tax on the real estate of this case shall be imposed on the defendant by the year 2004, and since 2005

The defendant loses possession of the real estate of this case on or around 2005 merely because it was imposed on Park 00

It is difficult to see that it had been established).

As such, the Defendant received the instant real estate from Park 00 on February 1998 and up to now.

As long as the defendant continues to possess it, the ownership of the defendant's Park 00 on the basis of the contract of this case

Since the right to claim registration of transfer does not run after February 1998, the extinctive prescription shall not run.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da148, Nov. 6, 1976; Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da32175, Mar. 18, 199). It is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration has expired on or around October 15, 2007 or at present.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

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

The defendant of the Cheong-gu Office will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on October 0, 1989 by the registration office of the 00 district court with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet to Park 00.

A. On October 13, 1989, the Defendant entered into a trade promise with the content of promising to purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from 00 on October 13, 1989 (hereinafter “the instant promise”), and completed the provisional registration of the Defendant’s right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 00000, Oct. 19, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 17000, Oct. 00, 1989>

B. On October 15, 1997, the Defendant entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant real estate from 00 on the purchase price of KRW 105,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). Article 5 of the sales contract provides that “The seller shall deliver all documents necessary for ownership (registration) to the buyer at the time of receipt of any balance and shall cooperate with the registration of transfer.” The Plaintiff completed the attachment registration on February 7, 1998 as a tax payer against 00 on the instant real estate on February 11, 1998 on the ground that “the seller shall deliver all documents necessary for ownership (registration) and cooperate with the buyer at the time of receipt of any balance.”

D. From January 1998, Park 00 issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant on December 20, 1997 to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the head of the Defendant. Around February 1998, a certified judicial scrivener cooperateed in the preparation of a document confirming the person liable for registration through a certified judicial scrivener. Around February 1998, the Defendant prepared an application for transfer of ownership and a certificate of purchase of national housing bonds to acquire the ownership of the instant real estate through a certified judicial scrivener, but failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant around that time due to reasons related to the Plaintiff’s seizure, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15098, Dec. 14, 1998; Presidential Decree No. 16095, Dec. 14, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 16683, Feb. 20, 200>

F. On August 2008, the Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case on the ground of the limitation period and the limitation period of the right to complete the reservation based on the instant trade reservation as the case of cancellation of the provisional registration by subrogationing Park 000 on behalf of the Defendant around August 2008. The Defendant responded to the instant case, and the exercise of the right to complete the reservation based on the instant trade reservation, and this case’s exercise of the right to complete the reservation based on the instant trade reservation.