1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is 4.2 square meters of C Forest land 69,521 square meters in Jeju-si to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 24, 2006, which was the date of completion of the instant provisional registration based on the instant provisional registration, on the basis of the instant provisional registration, to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations defense of the defendant is expired after the lapse of 10 years from January 27, 2003, the date on which the provisional registration of this case was completed.

The initial date of the extinctive prescription is the starting point of calculating the period of extinctive prescription, which falls under the requirements for the occurrence of the legal effect of the extinction of the obligation, and it constitutes a specific fact that constitutes the legal requirement of the defense of extinctive prescription, and thus, it is subject to the application of the principle of pleading. Therefore, where the initial date of the extinctive prescription differs from the initial date of the pleading, the court shall calculate the extinctive prescription based on the initial date claimed by the parties, under the principle of pleading. The same applies not only to cases where the

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da35886 Decided August 25, 1995, etc.). In addition, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration of this case is a in personam claim and the period of extinctive prescription is ten years, and the Plaintiff’s claim for principal lawsuit was filed on February 19, 2016, which was ten years from January 27, 2003, the starting point of the extinctive prescription period asserted by the Defendant.

C. First of all, the plaintiff's second defense is based on the provisional registration of this case.