1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 12, 1991, D sold the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff for KRW 1,934,00,000,000 to D, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million out of the purchase price to D on the date of the said contract, and the remaining KRW 1,634,00,000 on January 14, 1992.

B. Meanwhile, after the death of D, the Defendant completed the inheritance registration of the Defendant’s name on November 19, 2001 with respect to the instant real estate for which ownership was registered under the name of D.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendant, who is the heir of D who sold the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the above real estate.

B. In relation to the defendant's defense (1), the defendant asserted that "the plaintiff's right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant has expired after the lapse of 10 years from December 12, 1991, which was the date of the contract."

(2) The fact that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from D on December 12, 191 is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 6, 2015, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer of ownership had already expired prior to the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.

(3) On this ground, the Plaintiff re-claimed that “the extinctive prescription on the right to claim for ownership transfer registration was interrupted since the Plaintiff consented to the use of the instant real estate to Nonparty E and F, which was indirectly occupied by them,” but it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion that the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5 and 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.