The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Inasmuch as the provisional registration of this case’s assertion by the Plaintiff was cancelled unfairly by D, the Defendants, who completed the registration of ownership transfer, are the third party having interests in the registration, and are obliged to express their consent to the registration of restoration of provisional registration.

The provisional registration of this case is valid, based on trade reservation or payment agreement separate from the title trust agreement.

Since the Plaintiff is deemed to exercise the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation pursuant to Article 3 of the Pre-Contract for Sale of Real Estate (Evidence A5), the exclusion period has not elapsed since the Plaintiff occupied the site as the owner of the building above the site in this case, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the transfer of ownership following the exercise of the right to complete the sale reservation does not run

Since the provisional registration of this case’s assertion by the Defendants is premised on an invalid title trust agreement and is null and void, the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case accords with the substantive relationship.

The exclusion period of the Plaintiff’s right to complete the purchase and sale reservation against D has expired.

Even if not, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration following the exercise of the right to complete purchase and sale reservation has expired.

According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, D filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the plaintiff and cancelled the provisional registration after obtaining a favorable judgment in the first instance court. Since D withdraws the above lawsuit from the appellate court that was conducted by the plaintiff's subsequent appeal, and the validity of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff became extinct, it is reasonable to deem that the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendants have interests in the registration that completed the registration of ownership transfer after the cancellation of the above provisional registration.