1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court for the claim for the amount of money transferred to B as 2010da45501, and on February 18, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 62,622,898 won and the amount of 24,675,787 won per annum from September 10, 201 to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, on June 17, 2002, B entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and on June 18, 2002, Gwangju District Court’s net support registration and the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was established under the name of the Defendant, Gwangju District Court No. 23157.

(c) the present B is in insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation lapses to the 10-year exclusion period, the instant provisional registration ought to be cancelled. Therefore, the Plaintiff seek cancellation against the Defendant by subrogation of insolvent B. 2) Even if the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for security, the secured debt becomes extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the Defendant is obliged to cancel the provisional registration.

B. 1) Determination 1) The issue of whether a provisional registration is a provisional registration of this case’s legal nature is determined by whether the pertinent provisional registration is the real purpose of collateral security, and it is not determined by a formal statement, either whether the cause on the registry of the pertinent provisional registration is indicated as a trade promise or whether it is indicated as a payment promise (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da67020, Nov. 27, 2014). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant is KRW 35 million against B several times.