1. The defendant shall receive on May 1, 1990 from C the Busan District Court's Busan District Court registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant, his wife, made a provisional registration on April 30, 1990 (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) stated in the order for purchase and sale reservation on April 30, 1990, and C prepared a loan certificate stating that it borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff on March 22, 2010, and created a collateral (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”) with respect to the instant real estate on the same day as the security of the Plaintiff on March 17, 2014; thereafter, on March 17, 2014, the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of donation on February 24, 2014, not on the basis of the provisional registration of this case; on the other hand, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over each of the instant real estate at issue during the entire Busan District Court’s oral proceedings or on March 25, 2014.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff asserted that the pre-sale agreement between the Defendant and C, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, was null and void as a false conspiracy, or that the right to claim the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case expired due to the lapse of ten years, and that the Defendant sought the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant by subrogation of C, by proxy, against the Defendant. The amount borrowed by C is money borrowed from the Plaintiff. On December 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million from the Defendant for KRW 31,00,000,000 that the Plaintiff lent to C, and agreed to exempt the remainder of the debt amount of KRW 21,00,000,000 from the Defendant. Thus, there is no secured claim of the right to claim the instant provisional registration of this case. Thus, the subrogation lawsuit of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s obligee is unlawful.