1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following additional judgments, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if the sales contract concluded between Nonparty 1 and D on the land before division is valid, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is D’s obligation to register ownership to Nonparty 1. This became impossible on August 22, 1996, which completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land before division, to the Plaintiff. In addition, even if D’s secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was decided to be the compensation obligation to Nonparty 1 for damages owed to the non-party clan, the above secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was extinguished by the statute of limitations on August 22, 2006, it was obvious that 10 years have elapsed since the date of the registration of ownership transfer. Accordingly, since there was no secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, the Defendant’s assertion is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security on the land before division between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, which was the mountainous district of a clan on August 196, 1996.

Therefore, the establishment registration of the instant relocation is aimed at securing the Plaintiff’s obligation to register ownership transfer on the ground of termination of the Plaintiff’s title trust with the non-party clan, and the non-party clan sent to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015 a certificate that the said contract would terminate the said title trust agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) Determination 1) In full view of each of the above evidence, each of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 11 (each of the items including numbers, images, and the whole purport of the arguments, the following: