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

A. Pohang-si was the owner of each of the instant real property, and on May 30, 2013, concluded a contract with the Defendant to sell each of the instant real property at KRW 151,381,140.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On May 30, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on the same day (hereinafter “instant transfer”) with respect to each of the instant real estate on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 5, and 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s parents had been residing in each real estate of this case since about 40 years since the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, one of the successors has the right to purchase each of the instant real estate as a relative to the instant real estate, and against the Defendant who purchased each of the instant real estate in subrogation of port and port by subrogation of the right to be preserved, the right to request the revocation of the instant sales contract and the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer registration.

B. Even if a tenant of a State property has a preferential right as a relative of the State property, it cannot be deemed that the above preferential right is a legal right under the law, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tenant’s preferential right is a preserved right and thus, it cannot be claimed a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 71Da1826, Oct. 11, 1971). Since the sale of State property is a legal act under private law, and there is no provision regarding the preferential right, such as the provision of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da12868, Feb. 14, 1992). Based on the above legal principle, health care units and the preferential right of the relative asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a legal right, and thus, the obligee’s subrogation right cannot be exercised on the basis of the right to be preserved.

In the end, it is eventually.