1. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to Jeju City C, 478 square meters:

A. Defendant Greencom Co., Ltd. is Jeju District Court on February 9, 2007.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 8, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a collateral security agreement under the name of the Defendant Company on the ground of the agreement between D and the Defendant Greencom (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on February 9, 2007 regarding the real estate as indicated in the order of the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to secure the obligation to pay for the goods to the Defendant Company based on the agency contract, but three years have already passed since the contract was terminated and the transaction was terminated.

B. On March 5, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under Defendant B on the ground of trade reservation on March 5, 2008.

【Defendant-Appellant Co., Ltd.: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant B: deemed as confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, D’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Defendant Company, which is the collateral obligation of the foregoing right to collateral security, has expired by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, and Defendant B’s right to conclude a pre-sale agreement has expired after the lapse of ten years from the date of establishment of the pre-sale agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to perform the registration procedure of cancellation of the above provisional registration, and Defendant B is obliged to perform the registration procedure of cancellation of the above provisional registration.

B. The defendant company asserted that the above extinctive prescription was interrupted by exercising its right before the above extinctive prescription expires, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above argument by the defendant company is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.