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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts used or added as follows.

The fourth 25th 25th son of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to “R”.

Each "Real Estate No. 1" of the 6th 19th 19 and 7th 2 and 3th 2 of the first instance judgment shall be described as "Real Estate No. 1 and 2 of this case" respectively.

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2059527 decided July 24, 2019 held that the Defendant appealed and filed an appeal with Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na205927 decided that the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on July 24, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The 7th day of the first instance judgment "the purport of the entire pleadings" in the 20th day of the first instance judgment shall be construed as "this court's significant facts, the purport of the entire pleadings."

The 5th written judgment of the court of first instance (16th 5th 16th 5th 16th 5th 16th 5th 100 "Evidence B1 through 6, 12, and 13."

The following parts shall be added to 16 pages 14 of the first instance judgment:

2) Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to complete the settlement under the instant agreement by October 31, 2014, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant agreed to collect rent for the instant real estate 1 before completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate 1 even according to the reasonable interpretation of the instant agreement.

3. The Defendant intentionally drafted the seizure execution status of the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer registration of ownership in order to avoid the transfer registration of ownership of the instant real estate No. 1 to the Defendant.

By October 31, 2014, D and C delayed the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the first and second real estate in this case, and thereafter D attempted to register the ownership transfer with respect to the Defendant on November 13, 2014, but C attempted to register the ownership transfer with respect to the first and second real estate in this case.