1. The defendant on August 1994, as to the building stated in the annexed list list to the plaintiff, the Busan District Court's net support registry office of the Busan District Court.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased the building of this case in the procedure of the provisional auction with the Gwangju District Court of Gwangju on September 25, 2015, by entering into a pre-sale agreement with the defendant on April 20, 1989 on the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the building of this case") and the defendant on August 30, 1994.

(b) the right which would become effective as a result of the other party’s declaration of the completion of the contract for sale and purchase; that is, the right to conclude the contract for sale and purchase is a kind of right to form and exercise within such period, if any, and within 10 years from the time when the contract for sale and purchase was made, if there is no such agreement, and the right to conclude the contract shall expire upon the lapse of the period of limitation; and

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da26425 Decided January 10, 2003). According to the above facts, the Defendant’s right to conclude a pre-contract for the purchase and sale of the third house has expired on April 20, 1999, when the limitation period has expired since the right to conclude a pre-contract for the purchase and sale of the third house was ten years from April 20, 199, the date of the pre-contract. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to have suspended the limitation period of the right to conclude the purchase and sale reservation since he/she occupied and used the building in this case by acquiring the building in this case from his/her own purchase and sale of the material price for the third house and leasing it to the tenants. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the building in this case has been transferred from the third house to the payment in kind, and further, there is no interruption of the same period as the extinctive prescription period during the exclusion period.