1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) on January 1, 201, among the land of 9,421 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si C forest land, 615/9421.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “afterward District Court Decision 79231, Nov. 7, 2014, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration of this case as of December 12, 2014,” which is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration of this case as of November 7, 2014,” which is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff asserts that the provisional registration of this case in the name of the defendant is null and void since the defendant received the provisional registration of this case from D, an unentitled person, and the defendant received the provisional registration of this case from D, the unentitled person.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 6, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant received the provisional registration of this case from an unentitled person D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, the defendant can only recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the right to the provisional registration of this case from F as of June 8, 2005, the right holder of the provisional registration of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The secured obligation of the provisional registration of this case claimed by the Plaintiff 1 as to the repayment of the secured obligation of the provisional registration of this case is KRW 20 million that D owes to E. D, in around 2001, D repaid the said obligation to E, or F subrogated the said obligation, and thus, the secured obligation of the provisional registration was extinguished.

Even if the obligation to E has not been extinguished, it was agreed on June 9, 2004 to adjust the existing obligation KRW 700 million between F and D to which the said obligation was transferred, so the secured obligation of the instant provisional registration was extinguished.

In addition, the F or the defendant's name has been made after the obligation to guarantee provisional registration was extinguished.