1. The Defendant shall make the Jeju District Court with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1,863/3,706 square meters out of D forest land No. 3,706 square meters in Seopopoposi.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 6, 2005, Nonparty E completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with respect to the shares of 1,863/3,706, out of 3,706 square meters of D forest land in Seopopo-si, Seopopo-si, Seopo-si as indicated in paragraph (1) of the order (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On the other hand, on June 13, 2002, the above E sold approximately KRW 1,100 as H natural green belt to the non-party G on June 13, 200, and received KRW 800 million as down payment, and thereafter, the above sale and purchase was cancelled and the above KRW 80 million was placed in a place to return KRW 3.60 million among them, but it was impossible to return KRW 3.60 million among them. In order to secure the above monetary payment obligation of F, E completed provisional registration on the instant real estate as described in Section 1 of the Disposition as of December 30, 205 due to the purchase and sale promise as of January 6, 2006, which was designated by G, as the Seopo District Court No. 6466 of Jan. 6, 2006.

(hereinafter the above provisional registration is referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”).

The Plaintiffs purchased the instant real estate from E on May 28, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 6, 2018 (each 931.5/3,706 shares) with respect to the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found earlier, the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of security established on January 6, 2006 in order to secure F’s monetary payment obligation to G. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription of the above secured claim has expired on January 6, 2016, which was ten years from the date of the provisional registration, is with merit.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that F would repay its debt to G, etc. on several occasions at the I hotel, etc. before January 6, 2016, and that F would have given up the benefit of prescription and approved the debt between April 7, 2018. However, each testimony of the witness J and G is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the aforementioned defense is without merit.

(c).