1. The defendant is the Daejeon District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court's branch office with respect to one-half shares of the 456m2 of the 456m2 in ASEAN-si.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 60,00,000 to D on August 9, 201, with interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month and due date for payment on December 31, 2013. At this time, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed D’s debt. (2) The Defendant completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on January 5, 2012 with respect to one-half shares of KRW 456,00 (hereinafter “the instant real property”) out of the total amount of 456,00 square meters prior to Asan City’s Seoul Special Metropolitan City as security for the said joint and several liability to the Plaintiff on January 5, 2012.

3) The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to complete a sales contract based on the instant provisional registration upon the application for amendment of the purport of the claim made on November 4, 2014, and the said application for amendment of the purport of the claim reached the Defendant on November 11, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff’s intent of the amendment of the purport of the instant provisional registration is as follows.]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff on November 11, 2014.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense of this case is that the provisional registration of this case constitutes a provisional registration for security, and the plaintiff is seeking the implementation of the principal registration procedure without undergoing the liquidation procedure stipulated in the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter “Provisional Registration Security Act”). Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff’s request.

B. Whether a provisional registration is a provisional registration for security ought to be determined depending on whether the relevant provisional registration is actually the purpose of collateral security in accordance with the substance of transaction and the interpretation of the intent of the parties, and the type of documents exchanged at the time of indication or registration on the relevant registry shall not be determined formally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da70640, Dec. 13, 2012). According to the above facts of recognition, the provisional registration of this case is based on the above facts of recognition.