1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Around July 18, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and Nonparty 63 on a total purchase price of KRW 7,843,00,000 on the land of Pyeongtaek-si and two parcels owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

On October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract will be rescinded on the grounds that the Defendant would remain unpaid.

Accordingly, on February 24, 2009, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate with the Suwon District Court rendered a claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant sales contract as the preserved right. On March 9, 2009, the Defendant received a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate from the above court, and around that time, registered the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter “Provisional Disposition of this case”). C.

Around February 2010, an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant sales contract. Under the said agreement, the Defendant withdrawn the application for provisional disposition of this case on February 23, 2010 and applied for the cancellation of its execution, and the registration of provisional disposition of this case was cancelled on or around March 12, 2010. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on the grounds of the instant sales contract to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff failed to exercise his legitimate right as the owner of the instant real estate from March 9, 2009, which was the date of the decision of provisional disposition of this case due to the improper provisional disposition of this case, until March 12, 2010, which was the date of the decision of provisional disposition of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s rent for the instant real estate during the above period.