소유권이전등기
1. Defendant F, in sequence, ordered the Plaintiff to take part in the annexed drawings of 39, 17, 18, 19, 40, 39 out of 601 square meters in racing-si G-si G-si.
1. The plaintiff's ground of claim against the defendants
A. Defendant F purchased the instant land from Defendant C and two others on March 19, 2005.
B. On June 13, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Defendant F.
C. On June 201, the Plaintiff acquired the entirety of Defendant F’s authority over the instant land from Defendant F. D.
However, on November 17, 2016, Defendant B included the instant land from Defendant C and two other parties, and Defendant B received the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale on September 19, 2016, with the same date as Daegu District Court and Racing Support, as Daegu District Court No. 65344, supra, on the same date.
E. However, from the sale on September 19, 2016, the Defendant B did not purchase the instant land from Defendant C and two other parties, and only divided the instant land into two and more parts, the seller of the instant land.
F. On June 13, 201, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant F is a creditor entitled to a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the sale on the ground of June 13, 201 with respect to the instant land, and that: (i) the Plaintiff subrogated Defendant F, or seeks to cancel the ownership transfer registration in subrogation of Defendant C and two others; and (ii) the Plaintiff seeks the ownership transfer registration with respect to Defendant F by subrogation of Defendant F, and (iii) the Defendant F seek the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to the cause of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant C, and two others
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant C, and two other parties is commonly subrogated by, or re-Subrogation by, Defendant C and two other parties, as seen above.
B. The obligee’s subrogation right is the obligee’s right to exercise the obligor’s right to the third obligor in order to preserve his/her own claim. Therefore, the obligor’s right to the third obligor ought to exist under the premise of its establishment.
Supreme Court Decision 200