1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 1970, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 27, 1975, the Defendant constructed a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land.

C. On November 12, 1981, the Plaintiff: “The provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership stated in the purport of the principal claim, which was based on the “sale reservation as of August 29, 1981” as to the land of this case to the Defendant.

D) On March 7, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant regarding the instant building on March 7, 2011. [The entries in the evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2, and 3, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff asserted that on August 29, 1981, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement stating that "if the defendant wishes to continue to use the building of this case constructed on the ground of this case for a sufficient period of time after the use and profit-making thereof, the land of this case may be purchased from the plaintiff," and the defendant shall have the right to complete the above pre-sale agreement, and the defendant's right to complete the purchase and sale shall expire at the expiration of the exclusion period, so the provisional registration of this case shall be cancelled.

As to this, the Defendant purchased the instant land on November 30, 1970 by the original Defendant and donated it to the Defendant, but the Defendant’s age was merely 22 years old at the time, and thereafter transferred the ownership of the said land to the Defendant, and thereafter, transferred the ownership of the said land to the Plaintiff once again. Even if not, the Defendant, at the time of constructing the instant building on the ground of the instant land in 1975, had the ownership of the said land transferred from the Plaintiff at the time of the construction of the instant building on the ground of the instant land.