매매예약에의한청구권보전가등기의말소등기
1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant also filed for the registration of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Northern District Court 2004, 4, and 2.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2004, the Defendant registered the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which was owned by C at the time (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) as the receipt of the Seoul Northern District Court’s Dongdaemun District Court’s receipt on April 2, 2004 by No. 12251, Apr. 1, 2004 (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).
B. After that, on April 18, 2005, the defendant entered into a sales contract with the above C, and on April 25, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer based on the above sales contract was made by the receipt of the same registry office as the head of the same registry office No. 14291.
B. After that, the instant real estate was transferred to D on July 22, 2005, and the ownership was transferred again to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2006.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, although the ownership transfer registration that the defendant completed as of April 25, 2005 was not made by the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership as of April 2, 2004, it is reasonable to view that the above provisional registration is based on the same cause of registration in light of the fact that the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was made by the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership as of April 2, 2004, and it is actually based on the same cause of registration. Thus, the obligation of the obligor
In view of this, the right to claim ownership transfer registration that is to be preserved by the provisional registration is extinguished.
(In addition, since the above right to claim the transfer of ownership on April 2, 2004 was not exercised since the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was made, it is apparent that ten years have passed without exercising the right to claim the transfer of ownership on April 2, 2004, the extinctive prescription of the above right to claim the transfer of ownership was expired. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of provisional registration