The defendant shall receive on September 15, 1988 from the original district court of Changcheon District with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 15, 198, the Defendant completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on September 10, 198 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “Provisional Registration of this case”). (b)

Since then, on February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, a child of C, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the unilateral promise for sale, the right that the other party of the pre-purchases the effect of the sale by declaring the intention of completion of the pre-sale, that is, the right to conclude the pre-sale is a kind of right to form and exercise the period of exercise between the parties, if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within such period, and if there is no such an agreement, within 10 years after the establishment of the pre-sale, the right to complete the pre-sale shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period, and the expiration of the exclusion period

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 2003).

There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to the exercise period of the right to complete the purchase and sale of the instant real estate. The Defendant’s right to complete the purchase and sale of the instant real estate expired after the lapse of the exclusion period from September 10, 198, which was the date of the reservation.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff.

[On the other hand, in a case where the person who has the right to claim ownership transfer of the real estate in this case occupies the real estate, the right to claim ownership transfer registration does not go against the extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da148, Nov. 6, 1976). The defendant is from his father C around June 198.