1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of this court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "Evidence No. 14" to the grounds of the judgment of this court in the last part of Paragraph (e) of Paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, "after that, on September 19, 2018, the Plaintiff made the Defendant as the principal deposit and deposited the purchase price determined in the judgment of the previous suit of this case on September 19, 2018, which was after the judgment of the court

2. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion, Articles 10 and 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same), Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the right to claim sale under the former Urban Improvement Act is the same as the public expropriation, and the purport that the limitation period is set for exercising the right to claim sale, the right to claim sale is not a mere obligatory claim. Thus, a person who succeeded to the real estate after the establishment of a sales contract by exercising the right to claim sale, succeeds to the obligation under

Since the Defendant established a sales contract for the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and C, and acquired the ownership of the instant real estate after the judgment of the previous suit became final, it is deemed that the Defendant succeeded to the status of the seller C, etc. and succeeded to the obligations under the sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant shall be deemed to fall under a successor after the closing of argument in the judgment of the previous suit of this case, and since the plaintiff made the defendant as a depositee and deposited the purchase price, the succeeding execution clause for compulsory execution against the defendant shall be granted.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the subject matter of a lawsuit prior to the relevant legal doctrine is a claim for ownership transfer registration with the nature of a claim in the nature of a claim in the claim, the person to whom the registration of ownership was transferred after the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit falls under “the successor after the closing of argument” that