1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 21, 1990, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 4,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant purchase”).

B. On April 21, 1990, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 2,000,000 in down payment and intermediate payment out of the above purchase price, and KRW 2,000,000 in the remainder on June 7, 1990, respectively.

C. On April 16, 1994, the defendant prepared a letter of transfer promising the plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration according to the instant sales contract. D.

On December 6, 199, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on December 6, 199 to the effect that “as the Defendant was aware of the cemetery’s gathering of the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, instead of the instant land, shall transfer ownership to 230 square meters of the land from among the other land owned by the Defendant incorporated into the land partition rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant asserts that the defendant's right to claim for ownership transfer registration has expired by prescription.

The Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership shall be deemed to have expired from April 21, 1990, which entered into the instant sales contract. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

(3) The Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership had already expired before filing the instant lawsuit, since it is clear that the statute of limitations had expired again from that time, even if the said statute of limitations had been interrupted in accordance with each of the instant transfer notes and the instant agreements.