2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

On October 4, 2001, KimB acquired the share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "share of this case") through a public sale, and completed the registration of the share transfer on September 6, 2002. The defendant purchased the share of this case from KimB around May 3, 2003, but could not complete the registration of the transfer due to the problem of farmland acquisition. Accordingly, the defendant agreed between KimB and the defendant under an agreement that "it shall be issued at any time as all necessary documents for the transfer of ownership" (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case"), and completed the provisional registration as described in the separate sheet No. 1 of August 9, 2004. The KimB is delinquent as of October 11, 2016, and the director of the tax office of KimB completed the registration procedure for the seizure of the share of this case on August 28, 2013.

2. Determination

The instant arrangement constitutes a unilateral promise for sale, i.e., the Defendant’s right to demand the KimB to furnish documents necessary for the transfer of ownership at any time, namely, the Defendant’s right to demand the transfer of ownership. In the unilateral promise for sale, the right to make a reservation is a kind of right to form a contract and the exercise period between the parties, if any, within such period of time, and within 10 years from the date the reservation is established, if there is no such agreement, the right to make a reservation shall be exercised within such period of time, and when such period of time expires, the right to make a reservation shall expire upon the lapse of the limitation period, and may not be interrupted during the limitation period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10

However, according to the facts of recognition, it is recognized that the Defendant did not exercise the right to complete the reservation pursuant to the instant trade reservation with the intention of May 3, 2013 after ten years from May 3, 2003, which entered into the instant trade reservation with KimB and the date of May 3, 2013. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s right to complete the reservation was extinguished by the course of the exclusion period (the same shall apply even if the period of commencement of the exclusion period, which is the date of the instant trade reservation, as of June 28, 2004 on the register).

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that he paid the purchase price to KimB as well as the tax imposed upon him after the payment of the balance, and that the transaction of the share in this case was completed. The evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and even if the fact of argument is acknowledged by domestic affairs, it is difficult to deem the fact that the agreement in this case was concluded by reconcing the facts acknowledged earlier, and thus, it is difficult to regard it as constituting a contract concluded by the agreement in this case. Further, the defendant asserts that KimB promised to faithfully perform the obligations under the agreement in this case on January 14, 2008. However, as seen earlier, it cannot be viewed as a meaningful assertion because the period of exclusion cannot be interrupted during the period of exclusion

Therefore, the defendant's right to make a reservation terminated by the lapse of the exclusion period, and the claim of this case against the defendant in subrogation of the right to claim the cancellation of the provisional registration stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article against KimB by subrogation of the right to claim the cancellation of the provisional registration stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article is reasonable, and the defendant is obligated to cancel

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.