1. The Plaintiff indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, among the area of 4,34 square meters in Sejong Special Self-Governing City I.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased 1,652 square meters (50 square meters) out of 1,652 square meters (hereinafter “I land”) among 4,334 square meters in Sejong-si, Sejong-si.

At the time, the plaintiff and the deceased B did not set the time to pay the purchase price, and when the plaintiff fully pays the purchase price, the deceased B divided the land and implemented the registration procedure for transfer of ownership, but did not prepare a sales contract.

B. At the time of the above sales contract, the Daejeon District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of the debtor’s net B, the collective security right holder JA, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 25,000,000 on January 22, 2007, under the Act No. 1390 on January 22, 2007.

(C) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s establishment registration was completed on December 1, 2012, 200, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the said land. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the said land.

(hereinafter referred to as "second priority mortgage"). (c)

On June 20, 2017, the deceased B completed the registration of the modification of the right to collateral security (Seoul District Court Sejong District Court No. 42483) that increases the maximum debt amount from KRW 24,00,000 to KRW 186,00,000.

The deceased B died during the instant lawsuit.

Defendant C is the spouse of the network B, and Defendant D, E, F, G, and H are children of the network B.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-6, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. Determination on the claim for transfer registration of ownership

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that he purchased the instant land from the deceased B from the deceased to the KRW 75,000,000 (per square year 150,000) (the deceased B’s heir), and sought implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership under the sales contract.

As to this, the Defendants recognized the fact that they entered into a sales contract, and paid the purchase price.