1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the recognition fact, and according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff completed the provisional registration of the right to claim partial transfer of ownership (hereinafter "each provisional registration of this case") with respect to each real estate of this case on April 9, 1984 on the ground of trade reservation on March 30, 1984.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) The right of the other party to the purchase or sale, namely, the right to complete the purchase or sale, by expressing the intention to complete the sale or purchase resolution, that is, the right to complete the sale or purchase promise, if it is a kind of right to create the exercise period between the parties, and if not, within 10 years of the establishment of the reservation, it shall be exercised, and if the period has elapsed, it shall be terminated by the lapse of the exclusion period;

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da44773 delivered on July 28, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425 delivered on January 10, 2003, etc.) B.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff separately agreed on the exercise period of the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation of each of the instant real estate.

Unless there is any evidence that the Defendant had exercised the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation against the Plaintiff, the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation of each of the instant real estate was extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period after the lapse of 10 years from March 30, 1984, which was the date of the purchase and sale reservation.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each provisional registration of this case, which is null and void.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that since the defendant lent KRW 30 million to the plaintiff and established each provisional registration of this case, the provisional registration of this case cannot be cancelled before the loan is repaid. However, there is no evidence to support that the defendant lent KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

The Defendant from the Plaintiff.