A. On May 4, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the amount of KRW 144 million between the Defendant and the Defendant, and to pay a down payment of KRW 50 million and an intermediate payment of KRW 70 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 24 million on October 30, 2005.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 120 million on the date of the above contract deposit and intermediate payment, and paid KRW 10 million out of the remainder on October 7, 2005.

C. Since then, on August 14, 2006, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sales contract of this case (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Da7008, Changwon District Court Decision 2006Da7008) and rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff that "the defendant shall receive KRW 14 million from the plaintiff and at the same time implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on May 4, 2005 with respect to the real estate of this case". The defendant appealed against the above judgment, but the appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Na9034, Nov. 9, 2007) dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Even after the judgment became final and conclusive, on June 22, 2010, Nonparty C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on public auction with respect to the instant real estate on which the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the instant sales contract was not implemented.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the third party acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case, and thus, the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership according to the sales contract of this case was impossible, and the plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel the above sales contract due to the above impossibility of performance as the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.