1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that each “Defendant B” is “B”, each “Defendant Daejeon Metropolitan City” is “Defendant”, “Defendants and B” as “Defendants and B”, “Defendants and B” as “Defendants and B”, and “No. 5” as “No. 7” as “No. 5” as “No. 5”, and that this part is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on July 6, 1991 with respect to the land of this case to B, and the plaintiff has the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the land of this case in accordance with the succession agreement of this case. Thus, in order to preserve the above right, the defendant may request the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the land of this case by subrogation of B.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. Since the defendant's defense that Eul's claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendant was extinguished by prescription, the fact that the land sales contract of this case between the defendant and B was concluded on July 6, 1991 is as seen earlier, the defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendant of this case can be exercised from the date of conclusion of the land sales contract of this case.

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was concluded after the date of the above conclusion, and it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 5, 2015 after the ten-year period from 193 to 10-year period from 1993 to 10-year period from 1993 to 10-year period from 20

As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff on June 26, 1992 after being entrusted with the title of ownership of the instant land from Class E, and the said clan, the title truster, continues to exist.