1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, despite the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant Defendant’s building based on the instant exchange contract, sold the said building to K around June 2016, and completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the agricultural cooperative in the name of the debtor, K, and the maximum debt amount of 780 million won with respect to the said building, respectively.

However, the defendant could not transfer the ownership of the defendant's building of this case to the plaintiff with the cancellation of the above provisional registration and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in insolvent condition. Therefore, the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff through the above provisional registration and the registration of the establishment

B) Even if the above provisional registration and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage did not result in the Defendant’s failure to perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff, the Defendant subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above building in the K on May 18, 2018, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff became final and conclusive impossible. However, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 998,562,120, which is the amount equivalent to the market price of the above building, to the Plaintiff as compensation for nonperformance, and the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 200,000,000,000.

2. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to perform the obligation to transfer the ownership of the instant building by December 31, 2017, but the Defendant delayed the performance without responding to the demand.

Therefore, the plaintiff is therefore entitled to Article 395 of the Civil Code.