1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1.The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent in the records or are obvious to this Court:

On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) from the Defendant and H’s mother; (b) the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the transfer of ownership of each of the instant land upon the completion of the above sales contract and the prescription for the acquisition of possession against D Co., Ltd.; and (c) the Defendant and H succeeded to the above Plaintiff’s obligation to complete the transfer of ownership of each of the instant land; (b) filed a lawsuit claiming that the Plaintiff and H had the obligation to complete the transfer of ownership of each of the instant land (the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against H on June 5, 2013; and (c) on July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff additionally sought the implementation of the preparatory procedure for the transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of ownership on the instant real estate as a preliminary claim for the transfer of ownership on July 25, 2013).

B. On this ground, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Southern District Court 2013Na53415, and in the above appellate trial, the Plaintiff selected the instant claim on March 6, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s primary purport of the claim in the first instance trial or the Defendant’s primary purport of the claim in the above appellate trial on November 29, 2012 is to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the instant land on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive prescription on November 29, 2012, and (2) or the Defendant changed to seek D Co., Ltd. to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the instant land on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive prescription, and the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the completion of the prescriptive prescription, and revoked the Plaintiff’s judgment on March 20,

(c).