All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In cases where a seller's obligation to register the transfer of ownership has become impossible due to the expropriation of an object of sale or nationalization, in principle, extinctive prescription shall run from the time when the seller's obligation to register the transfer of ownership at the time when the buyer can exercise his/her right to claim the subject matter,

(2) The legal principle on the starting point of the extinctive prescription of a subject-matter of claim is likewise applicable to cases where a seller’s obligation to transfer ownership was not fulfilled due to double selling of an object of sale, such as where the subject-matter of claim was caused by a cause attributable to the obligor.

2. citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right to claim was extinguished due to the completion of prescription, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to claim was clearly recorded in the record, on August 24, 2004, where the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership was impossible to perform, barring any special circumstance. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2016, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed, is apparent.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of extinctive prescription

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.