2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Accordingly, the defendant appealed against the losing part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for reinstatement.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (3) to the defendant’s argument, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4

(except for the part concerning the claim for damages excluded from the object of the adjudication of this Court).

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have failed to perform his/her duty under the instant sales contract, since the Defendant could complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate anytime as a company in fact identical with the EMC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EM”) and the Defendant, at any time.

However, even if the seller completes the registration of transfer to another person with respect to the subject matter of sale, if there are special circumstances that enable the seller to restore the registration of ownership of such subject matter and transfer to the buyer, the seller cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty to transfer ownership to the buyer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da99129, Apr. 29, 2010). According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9, it is recognized that the seller promised to transfer the subject matter of sale to the Plaintiff according to the instant sales contract if requested by the Defendant on January 28, 2016 and June 28, 2017.

However, EMC is against the land including the real estate in this case.