1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the court of first instance, as to this case, dismissed the “this court” described in the fourth and second main sentences of the judgment of the court of first instance as the “Gwanju District Court Branch Branch”, and added the same contents as those described in paragraph 2, as well as adding the same contents as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional parts

A. The Defendants asserted that even if the instant sales contract is concluded and conclusive, the Plaintiff did not perform the obligation to transfer ownership of each of the instant land, and that the Defendants cancelled the instant sales contract by delivering a duplicate of the reference document as of July 20, 2018. As such, the Defendants asserted that, from July 20, 2018, the extinctive prescription runs from the point of July 20, 2018, the claims for restitution arising from the cancellation of the contract, which is the secured claim

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant Company’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the Plaintiff according to the instant sales contract had expired from March 1, 2009, and the statute of limitations expired on March 1, 2014, five years after the expiration of the commercial statute of limitations. As such, the Defendants cannot rescind the instant sales contract on July 20, 2018.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that, by granting the establishment of the instant right to collateral to the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff approved the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral and suspended the extinctive prescription. However, as seen earlier, the instant right to collateral was established on October 4, 2007, and the fact that the right to collateral was established on October 4, 2007 cannot be seen as suspending the extinctive prescription of the relevant secured obligation.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed in its entirety.