1. Among the real estate listed in the attached list;

A. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, M, T, U, V, and W are attached.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number) as to the cause of the claim, the deceased on Oct. 16, 1976, and the deceased on Oct. 16, 1976, the deceased on Oct. 16, 197, sold the above real estate to the deceased AP to the deceased Q on March 7, 198, and the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the deceased Q on Sept. 2, 1991.

Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership based on the sale on September 2, 1991 with respect to the instant real estate to the deceased Q, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the deceased Q for the other successors of the deceased AO, respectively.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant X, Y, Z, AB, and AC asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s net Q has expired by prescription.

Even if a person exercises his/her right against only one party, such as delivery, registration, etc., of real estate, shall not be deemed as a whole to locked person on the right to such real estate.

As such, in cases where a purchaser continues to occupy the real estate for the purpose of delivery, the extinctive prescription of the claim for ownership transfer registration does not run, and in cases where the purchaser of the real estate uses or gains profit from the real estate and disposes of the real estate to another person as part of the exercise of more active rights to the real estate and succeeds to the possession, he/she directly uses or gains profit from the real estate as to whether the claim for ownership transfer registration is exercised.