1. The right which shall have the effect of a trade by declaring the other party to the trade in unilateral promise as to the conclusion of the trade in accordance with Article 564 of the Civil Act, i.e., the right to conclude the trade promise, if the other party to the trade has agreed to set a period for such exercise, within such period, and if no such agreement exists, within 10 years from the time the reservation is made, and the right to complete the trade shall expire upon the lapse of the period for exclusion;

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da44766, 44773 delivered on July 28, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425 delivered on January 10, 2003, etc.). Meanwhile, there is no special limitation on the exercise period of the right to conclude a reservation, which is agreed between the parties.

2. Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff completed the provisional registration of this case made on April 30, 2002 to the Defendant on the ground of a unilateral promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate on April 26, 2002.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that: (a) even though the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exercise the right to conclude a reservation until April 25, 2032, the Defendant’s right to conclude a reservation does not exist for the period exceeding ten years agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s right to conclude a reservation ceased to exist for a ten-year period from April 26, 2002 to April 25, 2012, when ten years have elapsed since April 26, 2002; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant was liable to implement the procedure to register cancellation of the provisional registration of this case with respect

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exercise the exercise period of the right to conclude a reservation until April 25, 2032, the right to conclude a reservation should expire after April 25, 2032 agreed, the right to conclude a reservation should be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period. Thus, the provisional registration of this case cannot be deemed null and void on the grounds of the termination of the right to conclude a reservation.

Nevertheless, the lower court is as indicated in its reasoning.