[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Noh Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 10, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant rendered a judgment to the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on April 12, 1997 with respect to 203 square meters of the area prior to 03 square meters in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu,

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 1995, the Nam-gu Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, ○○○ (number 2 omitted) was owned by the Defendant Village Association. The Defendant Village Association held a title trust with Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who are its members, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the joint name such as the above Nonparty 1, etc.

B. After that, on November 23, 1995, the land prior to the said subdivision was divided into 1,081 square meters prior to the said subdivision (number 3 omitted), 519 square meters prior to the said subdivision (number 2 omitted), 10 square meters prior to May 3, 1996 (number 4 omitted), and 509 square meters prior to the said Ri (number 2 omitted), and 306 square meters prior to the said subdivision on August 9, 1996. The land prior to the said subdivision (number 3 omitted) was again divided into 446 square meters prior to the said Ri (number 5 omitted), 635 square meters prior to the said subdivision (number 3 omitted), and 635 square meters prior to the said subdivision on September 19, 200, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the said land in the name of Nonparty 46 square meters prior to the said subdivision on March 13, 199.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant Village Association, around 194, decided to sell the remaining parts of the land owned by it and the forest land (number 7 omitted) of the same Ri, excluding the site of the Saemaeul Center, through bidding around June 13, 1994. As a result, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in KRW 250,000 per square year for the part of the land, excluding the site of the community hall, among the land before subdivision and the forest land (number 7 omitted) above.

After that, on June 24, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant Village Association on the remaining portion of the land before subdivision except for the site of the Saemaeul Center, the purchase price of KRW 250,000 per square day, the down payment of KRW 1,00,000 for the land of the Saemaeul Center, and the remainder of the land shall be paid after the partial survey of the site of the Saemaeul Center, and the delivery of documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership was to simultaneously pay the balance, and the bid bond of KRW 1,00,000 for the already paid bid was to substitute for the payment of the down payment of the above sales

D. However, as described in the above paragraph (a) from November 23, 1995 to August 9, 1996, the land prior to the division was incorporated into a site for construction of a road, which was implemented at the port of port of port, where the land of this case was divided into a 446 square meters prior to (number 2 omitted), 306 square meters prior to (number 3 omitted), 65 square meters prior to (number 5 omitted), 46 square meters prior to (number 5 omitted), 10 square meters prior to (number 4 omitted), and 446 square meters prior to the said division.

E. On August 21, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant Village Association for about 46 square meters (one hundred and thirty-five square meters) prior to the date of the said construction (number 5 omitted). The Plaintiff did not pay KRW 8,750,000 out of the purchase price (135 square meters x 250,000 per square meters) to the Defendant Village Association, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name with the cooperation of the non-party 3, where the head of the Defendant Village Association was the head of the Defendant Village Association at the time when he did not pay to the Defendant Village Association. On February 28, 1997, the Plaintiff received KRW 72,698,000 of the compensation for the said land from the Si of Port on February 28, 1997.

F. Unlike the sale agreement dated June 24, 1994, even if the above non-party 3 and the plaintiff did not receive the full amount of the purchase price for the above (number 5 omitted), the part members of the defendant village association agreed to obtain profits from the market price of KRW 38,940,00 ( KRW 72,698,000-33,750,000), which is equivalent to the difference between the above land compensation and the purchase price for the above land, and the plaintiff agreed to pay the above 00,000,000,000,000 won, which is 0,0000 won prior to the above (number 5 omitted) to the general meeting of the defendant village community, which was held at the defendant village community center around April 12, 1997, the sales agreement of this case was concluded between the above 0,750,000 won and the above 05,000,000 won for the remaining land.

G. However, by May 30, 1997, the Plaintiff did not pay 5,000,000 won for delay damages prior to the above (number 5 omitted) to the Defendant Village Association. Accordingly, the Defendant Village Association did not deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and installed sports facilities, etc. on the ground of the instant land from around that time, and used it as a village shelter, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1, Eul 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, Defendant Village Association is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the instant land pursuant to the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The Defendant Village Association first did not conclude the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, and even if it concluded a household sales contract, the instant sales contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the purchase price, which constitutes revocation of confession. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the confession was not in conformity with the truth, and that the confession was due to mistake, and that there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Next, the defendant village association is limited to the condition that the plaintiff pays KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant village association. Since it is argued that the above condition has not been fulfilled, the defendant village association agreed to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant village association up to May 30, 1997. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument that the above agreement is the terms of the contract of this case. Rather, the above 5,00,000 won is nothing more than the damages for delay of the contract related to the above (number 5 omitted) prior to the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant village association's above assertion is not accepted.

(3) Finally, Defendant Village Association claims that the extinctive prescription of the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the instant sales contract has expired, and thus, it is clear in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 29, 1998, after the lapse of 10 years from April 12, 1997, the date when the instant sales contract was concluded, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration based on the instant sales contract has expired.

As to this, the Plaintiff first agreed with the Defendant Village Association that the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the instant sales contract was made after the completion of subdivision registration on the instant land. As such, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer under the instant sales contract should be calculated from the date of subdivision registration of the instant land, the due date for which the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer under the instant sales contract was due. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer was not completed.

According to the statement of evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the subdivision registration of the land of this case was completed on or around February 6, 2001.

However, the Plaintiff’s testimony and the result of Nonparty 3’s examination, which correspond to the above assertion that the period during which the instant sales contract was due after the completion of the registration of subdivision of the instant land, cannot be seen as having been agreed upon by the Plaintiff and Defendant Village Association. In other words, the land of this case was not registered by the time when the instant sales contract was concluded, but its subdivision was already completed around August 9, 196, which was eight months before the date when the instant sales contract was concluded, and accordingly, the Plaintiff and Defendant Village Association indicated the land of this case as the subject of the instant sales contract at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract to the effect that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to easily recognize that the land of this case was divided into the land of this case, and that the land of this case was registered by the Plaintiff at the time when the instant sales contract was concluded with the land of this case, and that the land of this case was registered by the Plaintiff at the time when the land of this case was divided into the land of this case, and that the land of this case was registered by the Plaintiff 2.

In other words, the plaintiff, the president of the defendant Village Association, acknowledged the obligation to transfer ownership under the above sales contract to the plaintiff around 2001. As such, the plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription has been suspended, so that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant Village Association approved the above obligation to claim transfer registration through the resolution of the general meeting, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant Village Association approved the above obligation to claim transfer registration through the resolution of the general meeting, and contrary to each of the above evidence, the non-party 4, the president of the defendant Village Association, at the plaintiff's request, visited the office of the judicial scrivener in order to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership of the land of this case. In light of the above evidence, the non-party 4, the president of the defendant Village Association, at the defendant Village Association, visited the plaintiff's request, and the non-party 4, the head of the defendant Village Association, at the plaintiff's request, did not have any counter-proof evidence, and it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's right to claim transfer registration of ownership in this case.

C. If so, the right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the sales contract of this case has expired, so the defendant village council defense pointing this out has merit, and the plaintiff's above assertion has no merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cha Sung-woo