2.The change in exchange at the time of the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 17, 1996 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the grounds of the successful bid.

B. On June 20, 1996, the real estate of this case was completed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the name of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") under the receipt of the Busan District Court Seoha Registry on June 24, 1996, under the Act No. 52404, which was received on June 24, 1996.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the provisional registration of this case by asserting the following grounds to the defendant:

1) The pre-sale agreement, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, was not concluded according to the true will of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the pre-sale agreement also was concluded by the Defendant husband C (Death around March 24, 2001, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

2) Since the provisional registration of this case was forged by the Defendant, the provisional registration of this case is null and void as it was completed without any trade reservation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 2) The pre-sale agreement was rescinded by the Defendant, failing to pay the Plaintiff KRW 95,000,000.

3) The right to request the principal registration based on the provisional registration of the instant case expired at the expiration of the ten-year prescription. 4) The right to complete the instant trade reservation expired by the 10-year exclusion period.

B. Determination 1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the provisional registration of this case was completed without justifiable grounds, such as a pre-sale agreement, or that the pre-sale agreement was rescinded due to the failure to pay the pre-sale payment, and rather, the aforementioned basic facts and the evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (the Plaintiff’s seal image part is presumed to have been settled as a whole

The plaintiff defense that the purchase and sale pre-contract was forged by the deceased, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

According to his respective entries and the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff is against the defendant on June 20, 1996, and the plaintiff is against the defendant on June 20, 1996.