10 years after the date of the reservation to trade, the right to complete the reservation was extinguished.

Since the right to the completion of the reservation has ceased to exist over the exclusion period after the lapse of ten years from the date of reservation for sale, there is a duty to accept the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration for the right to claim transfer.

Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan5360924 Cancellation of provisional registration

○ Limited Liability Company specialized in securitization

Republic of Korea and 1

December 23, 2016

January 20, 2017

1. A. Defendant Da○○○ has fulfilled the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed as No. 13857 on November 24, 1999, with respect to the real estate stated in the attachment to Nonparty ○○○ (*****************************).

B. The defendant Republic of Korea expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed under No. 13857 on November 24, 1999, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 24, 1999, the non-party ○○ issued the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") to the defendant senior ○○ on November 24, 1999 on June 24, 1999 on the ground of the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case").

B. On the other hand, on April 23, 2009, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the additional registration of the seizure of the right to claim the transfer of ownership under No. 5621 on April 23, 2009, on the ground of the attachment on April 20, 2009 (the provisional registration of this case).

C. On March 30, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Yucheon District Court 2006Kacheon-si, 20000, and on March 30, 2006, the above court rendered a judgment that "the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 15,561,730 won and 8,585,171 won with interest of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment" and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

D. On August 25, 2006, ○○ died, and Nonparty P, his children, jointly inherited the property of Nonparty P, XY, and YY, and UPY renounced waived inheritance.

E. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the YY with this Court 2016 Ghana0000, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 31,248,131 won and 8,585,171 won with interest rate of 17% per annum from December 28, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant High○○: Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act

○ Defendant Republic of Korea: The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, after the lapse of ten years from June 25, 1999, when a pre-sale agreement, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, was established, the right to conclude the pre-sale agreement of Defendant Da○○ became extinct with the exclusion period. As such, Defendant Da○○ has a duty to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case upon the Plaintiff’s request by the heir of U.S. ○○, who subrogated to HeY, the heir of U.S., and Defendant Republic has a duty to accept the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case as a third party with interest in the registration of the provisional

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea, first of all, does not mean YY, the heir of ○○○, is insolvent. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense that the obligee subrogation lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it is not acknowledged as a need to preserve. However, in full view of the fact inquiry as to the head of ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○○, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense against the above principal safety of Defendant Republic of Korea is groundless

(2) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the limitation period does not apply to the provisional registration of this case where the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for security, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for security purpose. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.