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 reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding or supplementing the judgment as described in paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff added or emphasized at the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional supplementary judgment

A. The Plaintiff is the provisional registration in the name of J. The provisional registration in this case is the provisional registration for security, and the civil judgment related to the cancellation of provisional registration between Defendant B and J (the Busan District Court 2010Da65159, 2015Gadan35825) was finalized by the judgment against the Defendant, and it is apparent that J would immediately proceed to the settlement pursuant to the Provisional Registration Security Act. As such, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership pursuant to the instant sales contract against the Plaintiff is alleged to have become impossible. Therefore, in light of the contents of the appellate court’s decision on the cancellation of provisional registration in this case between Defendant B and J (the evidence No. 16-54 and the Busan District Court 2016Na425) (the provisional registration in this case is deemed to be the provisional registration not the provisional registration for the mere priority preservation).

However, the fact that the performance of an obligation is impossible is not simply an absolute and physical impossibility, but a creditor is unable to expect the fulfillment of the obligation in light of the empirical rules or the concept of transaction in the social life. Thus, even if the person liable for the registration of ownership transfer, etc. for the third party's real estate has completed the registration of ownership transfer, such circumstance alone does not make it impossible to perform the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer, and only if the person liable for the registration of ownership transfer does not have the ability to perform the obligation, the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer cannot be fulfilled.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22850 Decided January 24, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da8104 Decided July 26, 1991, etc.). Based on the above legal principles, the instant case is based on the above legal principles.