On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant multi-family house (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family house”).

B. On the same day, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the grounds of the reservation to trade in the instant multi-family house on the same day (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, although there was a claim to receive from C, the Plaintiff purchased the instant multi-family house from the purchase price of the multi-family house located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “existing multi-family house”) in the name of the Plaintiff in lieu of the repayment, and the provisional registration of this case is asserted that the Defendant’s transfer of the instant multi-family house on behalf of the Plaintiff was registered without permission at the time of registering the transfer of the right to the instant multi-family house on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was used to pay the lease deposit to the lessee of the existing multi-family house, and the purchase of the instant multi-family house was not used. The Defendant paid the remainder of the instant multi-family house KRW 65,00,000 and brokerage commission KRW 66,000,000,000 and completed the instant provisional registration with the Plaintiff’s consent to guarantee the return thereof.

B. A provisional registration is made to preserve the claim for ownership transfer.

shall not be presumed to have any legal relationship to claim the registration of ownership transfer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 79Da239 Decided May 22, 1979). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in the following circumstances, each of the following circumstances, known by health units, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 2, the existing multi-family house sales contract dated June 8, 2015 is concluded.