1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, given that it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion added as set forth in paragraph (2) below, this is acceptable as it is by the main text

2. The addition;

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s provisional registration is null and void as it succeeded to the provisional registration of G extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period. The judgment of the court of first instance, which was based on the premise that the Plaintiff asserted a pre-sale agreement, which is a new cause of provisional registration, was in violation of the principle of pleading. 2) The judgment of the court of first instance, which was based on the premise that there was no ground for provisional registration between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and that G’s children belonged to the Defendant on July 4, 2008, and accepted the signature

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the judgment on the first argument, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff completed provisional registration on March 9, 1990 for the right to claim transfer registration based on the purchase and sale reservation against G, and the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal for sale of real estate to B, who is an son of G on May 19, 208, and G died on June 13, 2008 and died on July 14, 2008, after that date, the above provisional registration was cancelled by the agreement of the Defendant and the heir of G on July 14, 2008, and the Plaintiff completed provisional registration on the same day.

According to the above facts of recognition, after the provisional registration of G was cancelled by the agreement of the plaintiff, the heir of G, and the defendant, the provisional registration of the plaintiff was newly completed, and the reason for the registration was also a trade reservation on July 14, 2008, different from that of the provisional registration of G. Thus, the plaintiff's provisional registration cannot be deemed null and void as the provisional registration of G was succeeded, and the plaintiff violated the principle of pleading in the judgment of the first instance.