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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each description of evidence Nos. 11 and 12.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the case where the 8th to 9th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is due and not fixed, and the period of extinctive prescription is run from the time when the Plaintiff’s claim can be exercised. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 6, 2017, after the lapse of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period from May 2, 1998, the date of the last lease, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s claim.

On the other hand, with respect to each real estate of this case, the Plaintiff received the right to claim ownership transfer registration in accordance with the letter of performance of this case as the right to be preserved and completed the provisional disposition registration, and filed the lawsuit of this case before the provisional disposition was revoked. The Plaintiff asserts that the credit of this case was not extinguished by the statute of limitations since the statute of limitations has expired while the execution preservation by the above provisional disposition continues to exist.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, on December 4, 2006, the plaintiff was determined to prohibit the provisional disposition of real estate on the ground that "the right to claim the transfer of ownership under the execution sheet of this case" as the preserved right by the head of the Gwangju District Court, the "right to claim the transfer of ownership under the execution sheet of this case" as the preserved right, and on December 5, 2006, it is recognized that the provisional disposition of this case was completed on December 5, 2006, but the prescription of the above right to claim the transfer of ownership can be suspended due to the provisional disposition of this case, and the monetary claim for the transfer of ownership