The judgment below

This part of the counterclaim shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. The grounds of appeal as to the principal lawsuit are examined.

Where the registration of preservation in the future is null and void because the preceding registration of preservation is not null and void, even if the person who completed the registration of preservation in the future occupies the real estate in peace and openly with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years and the acquisition by prescription has been completed, it cannot be deemed valid on the ground that the registration of preservation in the future or the registration of ownership transfer based thereon conforms to the substantive relationship. It constitutes a claim for cancellation of registration based on the preceding registration of preservation, claiming ownership based on the ownership based on the preceding registration of preservation, and seeking cancellation

It can not be deemed as a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63690 Decided February 14, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107064 Decided July 14, 201). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant-Counterclaim (Counterclaim; hereinafter “Defendant”), which was based on the above registration of ownership transfer, is null and void regardless of whether the registration of ownership transfer is consistent with the substantive rights due to the completion of the statute of limitations for possession acquisition, since the registration of ownership transfer under the name of D, which was completed in the register No. 11586 on the land listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table of the lower judgment, was re-registered in spite of the existence of a separate register on the same real estate.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on real estate sales contract and real estate registration rules, or omitting judgment.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the case, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. The counterclaim shall be deemed ex officio; and

The final and conclusive judgment shall become final and conclusive.