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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the intermediate payment of five million won on September 20, 1990 and the remainder seven million won on May 28, 1991 and paid the purchase price in full pursuant to the said sales contract, and sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant regarding the instant real estate.

Accordingly, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations, since it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 13, 2014 after ten years from the date of the above sales contract where the plaintiff can exercise his right to claim ownership transfer registration.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to interpret that the buyer's right to claim for registration of the real estate purchaser is not subject to extinctive prescription, unlike other claims, in cases where the buyer takes possession of the real estate upon delivery of the real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da148, Nov. 6, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da73011, Jan. 28, 2010). In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, the buyer of the real estate of this case, has not taken possession of the real estate of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff has taken possession of the real estate of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff's right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership of this case extinguished by extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit to examine further.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.