1. The Defendant: (a) on March 24, 2008, filed with the competent Jeju District Court for the registration office of Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si with respect to 1,613 square meters of C Forest land.

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of each argument in the reply to submit financial information, the land indicated in the order (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") shall be acknowledged as having been deposited by the defendant on July 21, 2014 when the defendant's mother purchased substantially D and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, and was entrusted with comprehensive authority by the defendant. The plaintiff entered into a trade promise with D to purchase the land of this case with D on March 21, 2008 and paid KRW 35 million out of the price, and completed a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer on the same day. The plaintiff refused to accept the balance of the purchase and sale promise while denying the existence of the above promise, and thereby, deposited KRW 5 million in the future with the defendant under No. 1019, Oct. 21, 2014. Meanwhile, the copy of the complaint of this case where the plaintiff expressed his intent to complete the purchase and sale was served on the defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the basis of the above provisional registration to the plaintiff.

As the above provisional registration is completed to secure the return of KRW 10 million invested by the plaintiff to D, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before undergoing liquidation procedures prescribed by the Provisional Registration Security Act. However, as seen earlier, the above provisional registration is a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership based on the purchase and sale reservation. Thus, the above assertion is not accepted on a different premise. Furthermore, even if the above provisional registration was completed to secure the return of investment funds as alleged by the defendant, it is not acceptable to accept the above provisional registration, and even if it was completed to secure the return of investment funds, it is a property right of the borrower in lieu of the borrowed object.