The defendant shall receive, on July 15, 2002, from the plaintiff, the Suwon District Court with respect to the size of 383 square meters prior to Leecheon-si.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the theory of alteration as to the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement with the plaintiff on June 30, 2002 with respect to the sale and purchase of 383 square meters in Leecheon-si on the ground of the pre-sale agreement on July 15, 2002, and completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership under Paragraph 1 of the disposition (hereinafter "provisional registration of this case") in the defendant's name on the ground of the pre-sale agreement, but did not exercise the right to complete the sale and purchase agreement until now, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's right to complete the above trade reservation has expired after the lapse of the exclusion period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 2003) as of June 30, 2012, which was 10 years from June 30, 2002, which was the date of entering into the pertinent trade reservation. Thus, the provisional registration of this case on the ground of the above trade reservation should be cancelled.

2. The defendant's assertion that the provisional registration of this case should be maintained as it is, since the defendant's purchase of the above land from the plaintiff, installed facilities for farming roads, drainage pipes, factory sewerage, etc. on the ground, and continued to be used until now, and since farmland of less than 250 square meters cannot be owned by the farmland of less than the farmland of 250 square meters under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Farmland Act, it is not possible to complete the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case. However, as alleged by the defendant, the circumstance alleged by the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground for defense

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.