A. The plaintiff is the Dong C's birth, and the defendant is married with C but divorced on November 29, 1996.

C and the defendant are married D(E).

B. C dies on October 26, 2014, and D independently succeeded to the real estate indicated in the order that D owned (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On the other hand, on December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a pre-sale agreement with D to purchase the instant real estate, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”).

According to the above pre-sale agreement, the buyer is deemed to have paid the purchase price without fixing a period and at the same time declared the intention to complete the sale (Article 1), and the buyer stated that the buyer paid the seller KRW 34 million to the seller at the time of the establishment of the pre-sale agreement.

C. After the completion of the above provisional registration, the Defendant, who was the mother, succeeded to the seller’s status of the instant real estate when D died.

【A without any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration of this case with respect to the real estate of this case on December 4, 2014.

Although the Defendant asserts that it is difficult to believe that D, as of December 4, 2014, entered into a pre-sale agreement as above, it was difficult to believe that D, who was an adult, received KRW 34 million in the purchase price. However, it appears not to be the purport of actively disputing that D had no obligation to implement the principal registration procedure. However, the Plaintiff submitted D’s self-written copies (Evidence 6) while specifically explaining the circumstances in which D had completed provisional registration to the Plaintiff, and there is no other circumstance to deny the validity of the pre-sale agreement.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, but the defendant of this case.