beta
Text
1. The defendant has to the plaintiffs each real estate stated in the separate sheet in the Seoul Western District Court's Yongsan Registry on 192.
Reasons
1. On March 9, 192, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by E of the basic facts, the provisional registration of the right to transfer ownership has been made in the name of the defendant on March 7, 1992 by reason of the reservation for trade as of March 7, 1992.
The plaintiffs are successors who have succeeded to the above real estate due to the death of the above E.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1 through 7
2. The right to make the purchase and sale effective by expressing the other party’s resolution on the completion of the purchase and sale in the unilateral promise for sale as stipulated in Article 564 of the Civil Act, based on the determination on the cause of the claim, is a kind of right to create a purchase and sale, and if there is no such agreement between the parties, the right to exercise the right within such period, and if there is no such agreement, within 10 years from the time of establishment of the reservation, the right to complete the reservation shall be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period even if the other party is delivered the real estate, which is the object of the reservation, even if it
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, 62578 Decided July 24, 2014). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is apparent that the period of exclusion has elapsed since March 1992, 192, a pre-contract for sale and purchase of the said real estate was concluded, and thus, the Defendant’s right to completion of pre-contract was extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period, without examining whether the Defendant occupied the said real estate by delivery.
(A) The Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the right to complete the purchase and sale agreement was interrupted since the Defendant occupied the real estate after entering into the purchase and sale agreement, but as long as the right to complete the purchase and sale agreement is a right required for the exclusion period, the interruption defense regarding the extinctive prescription is without merit).