1. The defendant shall pay to the non-party farming association D a share of 1/2 of the real estate stated in the attached Table.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for arrears of KRW 25,027,880 against the Agricultural Partnership D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On September 30, 2008, D entered into a trade reservation with E on the condition that E would pay acquisition tax, transfer tax, and tax-related expenses arising from the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and completed the provisional registration of transfer right claim (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) against E on October 20, 2008 as to the 1/2 share of the above real estate under the receipt of the 1/2 share of the 1/2 share of the above real estate by the Dongcheon District Court registry Office of 18258. On November 9, 2009, E completed the registration of transfer of the above provisional registration to the Defendant under Article 17055 of the receipt of the Dacheon District Court’s annual registry office.

(c)D does not have any property other than the real estate (1/2 shares) listed in the separate sheet.

(Financial Property 4,001). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s right to complete the pre-sale agreement with D in relation to each of the provisional registrations of this case expired after the lapse of the exclusion period of 10 years.

The plaintiff is also required to exercise the right against the defendant in order to preserve the claim against D, so the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to D.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's argument that there is sufficient financial resources of D, so there is no need for preservation. However, as seen earlier, D has no specific assets except the real estate (1/2 shares) indicated in the attached list, and therefore the necessity for preservation is recognized. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case against the defendant is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.