1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on a new argument made by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Judgment on the new argument in this Court

A. The Defendants, other than Defendant D, transferred shares of the instant land to Defendant D on May 13, 2008, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of real estate ownership transfer against the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants’ obligation to transfer ownership was impossible. The right to claim damages due to nonperformance against the said Defendants, which the Plaintiff had against the said Defendants, arising on May 13, 2008 and run extinctive prescription from that date.

On December 19, 2017, before the expiration of 10 years, the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim against the said Defendants into the claim for damages due to nonperformance of the obligation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against the said Defendants did not expire by prescription.

B. Determination 1) The claim for the transfer registration of ownership in the instant land owned by the Plaintiff against the Defendants was extended to the original claim or altered to the original claim. Therefore, when the original claim has expired by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da45779, Feb. 28, 2018). 2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not occupy and use the instant land at least after 1999, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership in the instant land owned by the Defendants was extinguished by the lapse of the extinctive prescription period from around 1009 to around 1009.

In addition, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants except Defendant D transferred the instant land ownership shares to Defendant D.