2. The costs of appeal are the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 28, 1960 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on the ground of sale on June 24, 1960 at the deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On February 24, 2016, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on May 2, 1998 in the Defendants’ future on May 2, 1998. On the same day, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 4, 2003 in the case of the Defendants’ Intervenor’ Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the instant real estate transferred to the Gyeong Highway was purchased by consultation from the deceased on December 31, 1969, and occupied it in peace and public performance as owned by the deceased on July 7, 1970, as well as the deceased’s heir, for sale and purchase around December 31, 1969, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure according to the respective inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2, based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on July 7, 1990.

As the Intervenor’s Intervenor had already completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant real estate, the Plaintiff cannot seek the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants. As such, it is reasonable to view that, in real estate sale, the seller is in an impossible status, barring special circumstances, when the seller sells the subject matter to another person and completes the registration of ownership transfer to a third party despite the seller’s duty to have already sold the subject matter to the third party, and then again transfers the subject matter to the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1416, Mar. 22, 1983).