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. On August 4, 2010, C, the owner of the instant land, completed the provisional registration of this case with respect to the instant share to the Defendant.

On the other hand, on March 7, 2006, C completed the registration for the establishment of the mortgage of this case (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) with respect to the land of this case to the Handong-dong Saemaul Depository, the maximum debt amount of which was 375,000,000, but on August 3, 2010, C completed the registration for modification of the mortgage of this case, changing the debtor of the instant mortgage of this case to the defendant and the maximum debt amount of which was 30,000,000 won.

On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant provisional registration as follows (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant for down payment.

[The contract of this case] Seller: The defendant, buyer: 315,000,000 won for the purchase of the plaintiff: 35,000,000 won for the contract shall be paid at the time of the contract.

Any balance: 280,000,000 won shall be paid on October 10, 2012, and 200,000,000 won of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security shall be succeeded by the Plaintiff.

Special agreement: All public charges, such as capital gains tax, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff shall bear the interest accrued after October 1, 2012 on the universal obligation of the instant right to collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the issue

A. As to the claim for the transfer registration of the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff’s instant sales contract is valid, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s delay of performance and lost its validity. Therefore, the validity of the instant sales contract shall be examined.

B. The Plaintiff did not pay KRW 280,000,000 to the Defendant until October 10, 2012, which is the remaining payment deadline, as well as the fact that the instant sales contract was effective.