1. The Defendant: (a) on October 28, 2015, the Suwon District Court Yang Pyeong-gun, Yangyang-gun, 2266 square meters of forests and fields; (b) on the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the Plaintiff would purchase KRW 411,60,000,00 with respect to the land owned by the non-party company in Yangyang-gun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on October 15, 2015.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) under Article 49441 on the ground of the offer to sell and purchase the non-party company as of October 19, 2015.

C. D completed the additional registration prior to the provisional registration on November 26, 2015, on the grounds of transfer of contract as of November 25, 2015, and the Defendant completed the additional registration prior to the provisional registration on December 1, 2016 on the grounds of transfer of contract as of December 1, 2016.

[Grounds for Recognition: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) asserts that the provisional registration of this case was made in the form without a cause for registration, or one year has passed since the period for exercising the right to complete reservation determined under the repurchase agreement of the Nonparty Company, the Defendant, the assignee of the above provisional registration, is obligated to cancel the above provisional registration. (2) The Defendant’s provisional registration of this case is a valid provisional registration made between the Nonparty Company and the Plaintiff in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the purchase and sale reservation on October 19, 2015. The Defendant’s title trust was undermined to the Nonparty Company for the development of the land of this case, and thus the real right holder of the above land is the Defendant, and the Defendant trusted the above purchase promise with the Plaintiff’s consent by means of the means to secure ownership with the formation