2. Requirements for exercising creditor's subrogation right;

2. In order for the creditor to exercise his/her rights to preserve his/her own claims, it shall be limited to cases where such debtor has not exercised his/her rights;

All of the Plaintiff’s appeal, Defendant 3’s appeal, and Defendant 3’s claim extended in the trial room are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of the first and second trials between the plaintiff and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the costs of the appeal arising from the plaintiff's appeal and the appeal filed by the defendant 3 shall be borne by the same appellant, etc., respectively.

The court costs are to be assessed against the defendants, and the court below's decision that the plaintiff as to the defendant 1 is to file a claim for the preliminary purport of the claim, and the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership based on prescription on July 9, 1969 to the registration number 350 to the above registration number 350 to the above registration number of the above real estate, and the registration number 877 to the above registration number 87 of the above registration number as to the above real estate as to the defendant 5 and 3 was received on July 9, 1959 to the plaintiff on July 1, 1959, and the registration procedure for the cancellation of transfer of ownership based on sale as of November 5, 1963 to the above registration number 17153 to the above registration office on November 1, 1963, respectively.

On June 21, 1949, the registration number of real estate register to be kept in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan Government Seongbuk-dong 475-1, 954, Defendant 1, on the register number 350 of the real estate register to be kept in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seongbuk-dong 475, performed the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer due to purchase under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act on June 21, 1949, and Defendant 4 performed the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer due to purchase under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act on July 1, 1959 to Defendant 5, and Defendant 5 performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the above registration number 877 of the registry number on the real estate on July 9, 1959 to Defendant 4 on July 1, 1959, and Defendant 3 performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to purchase and sale on November 11, 1963, respectively.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second trials (the preliminary purport of the claim extended in the trial is the same as the entry in the purport of the claim), Defendant Republic of Korea, has the same judgment as the order, and Defendant 3 has revoked the part against Defendant 3 in the original judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials.

2. Determination on the classification of principal claims against the Plaintiff against Defendant 1, the Republic of Korea, and Defendant 4

As seen above, the plaintiff's above real estate was purchased by the Republic of Korea as farmland owned by the defendant at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and again, the defendant distributed farmland to the defendant 4, and the defendant 5 as stated in the above registration number No. 877 after completion of the above repayment, and the non-party 3 sold the above real estate in sequential order to the plaintiff, and the non-party 3 was the final purchaser of the above registration number No. 877, respectively, and the above registration No. 350 became invalid as a double registration. Thus, the above registration No. 350 was not required to execute the above registration No. 350, by subrogation of the former seller for the above registration number No. 350. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for transfer registration as to the above part of the defendant 1 was based on the premise that the plaintiff's right to claim transfer registration was not exercised by the court of first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's right to claim transfer registration as to the above part of the defendant 4 was not effective by the defendant 1's right.

3. Determination as to the claim No. 350 against Defendant 3 in the registration number No. 350

As seen above, the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the non-party, and the non-party purchased it from the non-party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 10 of the above registration number 877. However, as seen above, the registration is null and void as a double registration. Thus, it is argued that the non-party sought a judgment identical to the purport of the claim by subrogation of the non-party in order to claim the registration of ownership transfer as stated in No. 350 of the above registration number No. 877. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the party's argument as to the above real estate on March 9, 1966, the defendant 3 concluded a repurchase agreement with the non-party for the repurchase period up to April 10 of the above registration number No. 877, and the non-party sold the above real estate on June 27, 196 and received the ownership transfer registration from the non-party on June 30, 196.

4. Determination on the ancillary claim against Defendant 1

Even if each of the above claims is groundless, the plaintiff's above real estate was occupied by defendant 4 as the cultivator at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on the ground of completion of the above registration number 877 on the ground that the above real estate was distributed by the state as the cultivator at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and it was sold to defendant 5 on July 1, 1959, and the defendant has occupied it in peace and openly and openly after completion of the registration of ownership transfer on the above register as of July 9, 1959. The defendant 3 sold the above real estate to the defendant 3 in sequence, as seen above, and the non-party 3 succeeded to the above sale to the defendant 5 on the above sale date, and the defendant 3 did not have the above possession on the above 7-year basis that the above real estate was occupied by the defendant 3 and the plaintiff was occupied by the defendant 3 and the plaintiff's joint possession of the above real estate with no intention to hold the remainder of the registered real estate for 190 years on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for the above acquisition of title 2.

5. Determination as to Defendant 5 and 3’s main claim and conjunctive claim under the above registration number No. 877

As seen above, the plaintiff's claim is that the above registration number 350 and 8777 of the above registration number were completed with respect to the above real estate, and the registration number 8777 is invalid because it is later registered. As seen above, since the registration number 877 of the above registration number infringed on the plaintiff's real right who is the real right holder with respect to the above real estate since the registration number 5 and 3 of the above registration number 877 was completed, the above registration number 5 and 877 of the above registration number, and the above owner's right to the above real estate was distributed to the government and acquired the ownership of the above real estate by subrogation of the defendant 4, and as seen above, the above registration number 875 of the above registration number 875 of the Real Estate Act cannot be viewed as invalid as the above registration number 875 of the Real Estate Registration Act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the above registration number 8777 of the above registration number cannot be seen as invalid.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant 1 under the above registration number 350 and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 5 and 3 under the above registration number 877 and the principal claim against the defendant 5 and 3 under the above registration number 350 are all reasonable. In conclusion, the original judgment is just, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 under the registration number 350 is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 is just, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 is dismissed as it is without merit. The original judgment with different conclusion is unfair and reasonable in its part, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant's Republic of Korea is with merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and 877 is dismissed, and all of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1, 5 and 3 are dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the defendant 96 and 995 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per each of the Disposition by the court below.

Judges Cho Young-do (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-hee Kim Awards and Decorations