1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on December 23, 2014 on December 23, 2014, as the receipt of the District Court No. 64610 on December 24, 2014, for the Defendant with respect to the share of 6612/97, out of the 9,767 square meters of land in Seopopopo City, which was owned by the Plaintiff, among the 9,767 square meters of land in Seopopo-si,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The provisional registration of this case is invalid because the plaintiff and the defendant have not entered into a pre-sale agreement which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case.

B. The Plaintiff merely agreed to borrow the instant real estate to Nonparty D as collateral and at that time transferred money to the Plaintiff by borrowing KRW 30,88 million to the Defendant with provisional registration made by D.

The provisional registration of this case falls under the provisional registration of security by nature, and since the provisional registration of this case is subrogated for the above obligation in Handong Law Firm after then, provisional registration shall be cancelled

3. Determination

A. According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), it is acknowledged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration of this case against the plaintiff, and the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2015Kadan225794, which was based on the above provisional registration, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration on April 23, 2015. The plaintiff filed an appeal (Seoul Southern District Court 2015Na59493) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2016Da257459), but all appeals and appeals were dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 16, 2016. In the above lawsuit, the plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration of this case was invalid or the obligation was extinguished as a provisional registration of security, but all of its arguments were not accepted.

B. In light of the above circumstances and the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including paper numbers) and witness D’s testimony, etc., the plaintiff 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) in this case.