1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall list the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant’s share of 1/18 of the land stated in the attached list No. 1, and the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a equity right holder or owner of each land listed in the separate sheet.

B. The provisional registration of each right to claim for partial transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed on the ground of a purchase promise as of April 20, 2001, No. 8870 on April 19, 2001, which was received on April 20, 2001, as to the shares of 1/18 out of the land of 270 square meters (hereinafter “C land before partition”), and the shares of 10/48 out of the land listed in the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2, the Suwon District Court, Yangyang-gun District Court, Yang

C. Before subdivision, land C was divided into each land listed in separate sheet 1 and 3 on October 5, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. 1) The judgment on the primary argument is that the provisional registration of this case was completed without a legitimate ground for registration. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff. 2) The judgment on the real estate registration of this case is presumed to have been completed by a legitimate ground for registration itself as it exists in its form, and thus is presumed to have been completed by a legitimate ground for registration. Thus, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidation on the part of the assertion that the registration was completed without a ground for registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997; 201Da51281, Oct. 13, 2011). While the registration of this case was duly acquired by another cause without a ground for registration recorded in the registry, it is somewhat different from the form and process of the act of registration, and the presumption of its registration cannot be said to have been broken with

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff made a pre-contract with the Plaintiff on April 19, 2001 and completed the provisional registration of the instant case on September 12, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on February 12, 2001 and the Plaintiff on February 12, 2001.