1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is Seoul Southern District Court regarding real estate stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. On December 9, 200, with respect to the building of this case owned by Nonparty C and D, the entire co-owners’ share transfer registration (hereinafter “transfer registration in the Plaintiff’s name”) was completed under the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of sale as of November 1, 2000, under Article 60338, which was received by the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court).

B. On February 9, 2004, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed in the name of the Defendant (the Plaintiff’s birth) on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of February 9, 2004, as Seoul Southern District Court received No. 8699, Feb. 9, 2004.

C. Meanwhile, with respect to the above building, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (the No. 1 collateral mortgage) was completed on the same day (the date of December 9, 2000) as the registration of the transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was completed, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (the No. 1 collateral mortgage) was cancelled on June 10, 2008. The provisional registration of this case was completed on September 6, 2003, which was before the provisional registration of this case was completed by the Defendant, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (the No. 2 collateral mortgage) was cancelled on April 20, 2004, and on January 30, 2008, the provisional attachment registration by creditors G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) was revoked as the creditor’s compulsory commencement decision or the creditor’s compulsory commencement decision was revoked on March 13, 2015, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the pre-sale agreement, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case, is false and even if not, the right to complete the pre-sale agreement has ceased to exist with the exclusion period. Therefore, the Defendant should cancel the provisional registration.

Since there is no evidence that the above pre-sale agreement constitutes false labelling, the plaintiff's assertion on this issue is rejected, but the plaintiff's intention to complete the trade has the effect of trade with his intention to complete the trade as alleged by the plaintiff.