1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of ownership preservation was completed on June 4, 2012, and on July 20, 2012, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed on July 20, 2012 as the receipt of the Ulsan District Court’s order from B to B on the same day (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”).

B. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with B to acquire the instant provisional registration right from B in the amount of KRW 135 million, and on the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of the instant provisional registration in the future.

C. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to complete a pre-sale agreement based on the provisional registration of this case to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff, based on the instant provisional registration, seeks implementation of the procedure for the principal registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of trade reservation on October 2, 2014.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the provisional registration of this case is null and void since there was no promise between the Defendant and B to sell and purchase the real estate of this case, and that the provisional registration of this case was not paid KRW 135 million on the purchase price in the certificate of promise to sell and purchase the real estate of this case (Evidence A2). Thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to implement the principal registration procedure

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 (the defendant's seal imprinter prepared the defendant's seal imprinter No. 2 without the defendant's consent, and seems to dispute the establishment of the authenticity, but the defendant's seal imprinter appears to be recognized as the defendant's seal, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been formed) on July 20, 2012, the defendant as the person liable for provisional registration and the person holding the provisional registration No. 901, the real estate of this case and the building No. 901 are below the real estate sales reservation certificate.