1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant is the Changwon District Court with respect to the Plaintiff’s 248.6 square meters in Kimhae-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant married with the Plaintiff’s Ma in 2009, but divorced around 209.

B. The Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) based on the purchase and sale promise made on January 14, 200, the Changwon District Court Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, as the receipt No. 2165, Jan. 14, 2000, as to the real estate of this case (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The provisional registration of this case is formally completed upon the Plaintiff’s request without any legal ground and thus ought to be cancelled. (2) Even if the provisional registration of this case is not null and void, the right to claim the ownership transfer based on the provisional registration was completed by extinctive prescription.

B. On the other hand, it is insufficient to find that the above status alone with the plaintiff and the defendant's personal relationship alone are in collusion with the plaintiff and the defendant to complete the provisional registration of this case in a false manner without any grounds for registration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the provisional registration.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. The legal relationship which is the cause of provisional registration for determination of a claim for completion of prescription is not formally determined by the indication on the registry, etc., but is determined by the substance of the transaction and the interpretation of the intent of the parties. The issue of whether provisional registration is a provisional registration is a provisional registration is determined by whether the provisional registration in question is actually the object of security for claims, and it is not determined by the formal entry whether the cause of the provisional registration in question is a trade reservation or is written as a promise for payment in substitution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 98Ma133, Oct. 7, 1998). We examine the Plaintiff on Oct. 23, 199; the Defendant’s KRW 500,000,000 on Oct. 25, 199; KRW 150,000 on Nov. 13, 199.