1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is to be changed to “208.” The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are as follows: (a) the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance admitting the same as the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding the judgment falling under paragraph (2) below; and (b) thereby, it is to be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. On December 6, 2002, J, the owner of Kui-si F and G (hereinafter “instant site”), the instant officetel site, the gist of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on January 12, 200, after purchasing the instant officetel from O.

With respect to the instant officetel building, registration of preservation of ownership was completed by subrogation in the name of the O in accordance with the Seoul District Court's provisional disposition (201Kahap35) on the ground of subrogation P on February 2, 2001 and subrogation P on the ground of subrogation.

On February 28, 2001, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with O on the instant officetel. A lawsuit for removal of buildings and claim for land transfer was filed against B, which led to an objective circumstance that E is unable to acquire the instant site and register the ownership transfer to the Defendant. As such, the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages arising from the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to register the ownership transfer, which is a secured claim of the instant mortgage, is in progress.

Therefore, on October 31, 2016, the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was suspended due to the Defendant’s execution of a provisional seizure order against D by taking the above damage claim as the preserved right, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the said claim was suspended. From November 1, 2006, the provisional seizure registration was cancelled, and ten years have elapsed thereafter. As such, the Defendant had already ceased to exist due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.