Plaintiff

Defendant

July 20, 2016

Changwon District Court Decision 2015Kadan9058 Decided May 3, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on April 30, 2002 by the Changwon District Court, Gowon-si (No. 6282) and completed on April 30, 2002, with respect to the land size of 208 square meters prior to Gyeong

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s provisional registration (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed on April 26, 2002 as the owner of 208 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) prior to the establishment of the promise to sell and purchase the real estate in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and the Defendant can be recognized as having no dispute between the parties, or by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the entry in the evidence No. 1. The right to make sales effective by expressing the other party’s intention of completion of the promise to sell and purchase the real estate in a unilateral promise. In other words, the right to complete the purchase and purchase promise is a kind of right to form a contract, and if there is no such agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the establishment of the promise, and the right to complete the reservation is extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 2003; 2010Do4265, Apr. 26, 2019).

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the limitation period has not yet expired since the defendant agreed to allow the completion of the pre-sale contract by April 25, 2032.

However, in order to promptly determine legal relations by allowing a right holder to exercise his/her right as soon as possible, the purpose of the system is to determine the legal relationship, and unlike the effect of extinction due to the lapse of a certain period and the absence of the right, the limitation period brings about the effect of extinction of the right by itself, and even in the case of extinctive prescription, it is more difficult to recognize extension of the limitation period by agreement between the parties in the case of balanced exclusion period in consideration of the fact that it is difficult to recognize extension of the limitation period in light of the fact that there is no extension of the limitation period, the limitation period should be deemed to have been set within 10

In light of the evidence No. 1, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to conclude a pre-sale agreement by April 25, 2032 to the effect that they can exercise the right to conclude a pre-sale agreement by April 25, 2032. However, according to the above legal doctrine, the Defendant’s right to conclude a pre-sale agreement does not exist within the period agreed by the said period exceeding ten years. Thus, as seen earlier, the period from April 26, 2002 to April 25, 2012, which was ten years after the date of establishment, was ten years. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Soo-eng (Presiding Judge)