1. The Defendant’s sales of shares of 998/3967, out of 3967㎡ in Yangju-si, to the Plaintiff on April 10, 2003.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 24, 1997, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of 3967 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C in Yangju-si.

B. On November 4, 2003, the 1498/3967 shares out of the land of this case were registered in the name of Nonparty D, the 486/3967 shares were registered in the name of Nonparty E, and the 985/3967 shares were registered in the name of the Plaintiff, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff, on April 10, 203, purchased 1/2 shares of the land of this case with the above D and E, and accordingly, purchased 1/2 shares of this case. Accordingly, the defendant first transferred 985/3967 shares from the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is obligated to transfer remaining 998/3967 shares to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant only concluded a sales contract with the non-party F, a broker at the time, and the plaintiff asserted that he is an investor of the above F.

(2) In full view of the above-mentioned facts of determination and the written evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 9, witness G testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff, not the above F, purchased shares of 1/2 of the instant land.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 10, 2003 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 998/3967 of the instant land.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) argues that even if the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration has expired since ten years already passed since the Defendant entered into the sales contract, and that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by receiving it from the Defendant, and thus, the extinctive prescription does not run.

(2) Although the fact that 10 years have elapsed since the date of conclusion of the judgment sale contract is apparent, the above evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and evidence No. 8-1 to 4, and evidence No. 10 respectively.