1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the husband of the defendant C who is a woman of the defendant.

B. On August 3, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on November 22, 2002.

C. On October 14, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on October 14, 2008 by the Seoul Southern District Court, Seoul Southern District Court on the ground of the trade reservation on October 8, 2008, as the receipt No. 88442, Oct. 14, 2008.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1's entry (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) The provisional registration of this case was completed on October 8, 2008 on the ground of the pre-sale agreement, but the pre-sale right was extinguished by the ten-year period of exclusion, and the exclusion period cannot be interrupted by its nature. 2) At the time of completion of the provisional registration of this case, the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant was extended to KRW 20 million from KRW 30 million to KRW 30 million, and the Defendant paid a considerable portion of the pre-sale amount from KRW 1 million each month to KRW 2 million.

3) The provisional registration of this case is null and void since the Defendant, as a false conspiracy with the Plaintiff, prepared a certificate of borrowing with the intention of evading compulsory execution, and completed the provisional registration of this case on the basis thereof. (B) The provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of security completed for the purpose of securing the loan claims against the Plaintiff.

2 The Plaintiff paid interest to the Defendant by August 13, 2012, and requested a grace period for the obligation on May 2019, the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation related to the provisional registration of this case was interrupted.

Even if the statute of limitations has expired, the plaintiff's assertion of the completion of the statute of limitations, which was known to the defendant with the same attitude, constitutes an abuse of rights against the good faith principle.

3. Determination

A. Legal nature of the provisional registration of this case