1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land, C completed the registration of transfer of ownership as the receipt No. 4874 on March 7, 1989 by Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch of Gwangju District Court.

B. On April 17, 2002, C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the purchase price of KRW 100,000,000 with respect to the instant land, and on the same day, C entered into a provisional registration on April 17, 2002 for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on the ground of the pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the said land (hereinafter “the pre-sale agreement”).

C. After that, C died, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer, which is the receipt No. 702 on January 4, 2007, due to inheritance by consultation or division with respect to the land of this case.

In order to preserve claims, including corporate tax, against D, the Plaintiff completed the registration of provisional attachment on the instant land by the receipt No. 15682, Mar. 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the legitimacy of subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition prohibiting the instant provisional registration prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court; (b) the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication in the instant provisional disposition; and (c) the Defendant thereafter filed an objection against the said provisional disposition; and (c) the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming performance of the principal registration based on the instant provisional registration against D prior to the application of the said provisional disposition; and (d) on the other hand, asserts that the subsequent appeal of this case is unlawful on the following two grounds.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant should be deemed to have known of the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 2015.

Therefore, the defendant can be held responsible for the lapse of the appeal period against the judgment of the first instance court of this case sentenced on December 17, 2015.