In the case of principal registration based on provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration, the order of judgment in the case of not requiring the exercise of the right to complete sale and the drafting of application for registration.

In order to preserve the right to claim registration of transfer of ownership, a provisional registration has a form of a pre-sale contract, but in fact, if the person having the right to a provisional registration makes a principal registration at any time without requiring a separate exercise of the right to complete sale and purchase, the person having the right to a provisional registration may request at any time to perform the principal registration on the basis of a provisional registration. In such case, the judgment order shall state the grounds for registration in the application for registration where the judgment becomes final and conclusive without indicating the exercise of the right to complete the construction or the date thereof.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kang-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1097 delivered on September 29, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 are also examined.

According to its reasoning, the court below determined as follows: (a) on October 1, 1968, the defendant established a collateral security right with respect to the real estate as stated in its judgment, and borrowed KRW 8,800,000 to the Handong Bank; (b) on January 30, 1969, the plaintiff agreed to take over the above bank's obligations and transfer the ownership of the real estate to the plaintiff as consideration; (c) the plaintiff thereafter paid KRW 13,481,420 to the above bank as principal and interest obligations, etc.; and (d) the remaining principal obligations were KRW 3,50,000,000 to the above bank; (e) the defendant again requested the above bank to lend KRW 5,00 to the defendant for a loan from the above bank in the form of installment savings loan; and (e) the plaintiff was not obligated to make a provisional registration for the purpose of preserving the ownership transfer registration by up to 90,000,000 for the above provisional registration under its own name.

In light of the records, the court below's examination of the above fact-finding relation is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and there is no error in law as stated above. The defendant takes over the defendant's obligations to the bank, and the defendant agrees to accept the registration of ownership transfer on January 30, 1969, the plaintiff paid the principal and interest to the bank and cancelled the registration registration of ownership transfer at the time of the contract, and the defendant did not accept the provisional registration on September 30, 1975 for the purpose of preserving the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration of the defendant's right to the provisional registration on the ground of a pre-sale of September 30, 1975. According to the records, if the defendant did not perform the provisional registration as above, and if the defendant's provisional registration was registered on the ground of pre-sale of the above provisional registration as stated on the ground of the judgment, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's exercise of right to purchase and sell the above provisional registration at any time without any further completion of the plaintiff's right to claim.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)