1. The defendant's indictment of all-round documents filed by the Jeonju District Court on July 13, 2006 on the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of claim as to the cause of the instant claim do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number).

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the promise in accord and satisfaction as of February 11, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint in this case, based on the registration of the price for the right to claim ownership transfer, completed by the Jeonju District Court on July 13, 2006, which was completed as of July 13, 2006.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that if the non-party B pays KRW 100 million to the plaintiff, the defendant can seek cancellation of the above claim for transfer of ownership, so the plaintiff cannot seek a principal registration based on the above provisional registration, but the above ground alone cannot be denied the plaintiff's claim against the defendant seeking the principal registration based on the above provisional registration. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

(A) In the event that a contract of “a weak meaning transfer security” which is scheduled for settlement procedures has been concluded, the debtor may at any time repay his/her obligation and request the creditor to cancel the principal registration based on provisional registration and provisional registration, even after the maturity of his/her obligation has expired, before the creditor executes the procedure for settlement by exercising the security right. However, the mere fact that a contract of “a weak meaning transfer security” was entered into, may not reject the request for principal registration based on provisional registration.