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

purport, purport, and.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is used or added, asserts that “the invalidity” in Part 4, No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be null and void, and that the ownership of the building of this case is still deemed to exist to the plaintiff, because the ownership of the building of this case is deemed to be null and void, and therefore, the plaintiff exercises the right to claim for the exclusion of interference based on ownership, and therefore, the part of “However,” in Part 4, at the bottom of the judgment of the court of

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant acquired the ownership of the building of this case as the exclusion period of ten years under the proviso of Article 11 of the Provisional Registration Security Act is over the ten-year limitation period. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion premised on the continuation of ownership of the building of this case is without merit.

① The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after the expiration of the ten-year exclusion period stipulated in the proviso of Article 11 of the Provisional Registration Security Act from the due date stated in the “The Loan Agreement” ( September 5, 2003) to N, and the Plaintiff asserted that the said agreement was null and void because the loan amount of KRW 1.3 billion stated in the said Loan Agreement was not received from N, while the Plaintiff issued a receipt to the N on June 5, 2003 to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 1.3 billion at a face value of KRW 1.95 billion, and that the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with respect to the instant building, etc.