A. On August 15, 1989, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant J for KRW 27 million.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc”).

A. Under the name of Nonparty K on September 18, 1989, Defendant J completed the registration of transfer of ownership on August 6, 1989 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 944/1,010 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 1989.

On January 29, 2004, the non-party L, who is the child of B, C, D, and E, died after having left the Defendant F, children, Defendant G, H, and I, who is the husband, as the bereaved family member, and K died after having left the Defendant B, C, D, and E, who is the bereaved family member on July 24, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (i) On August 15, 1989, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant J (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and agreed with the network K to purchase the instant real estate as a network K. As such, Defendant J’s purchase of each of the instant real estate from Defendant J by subrogationing Defendant J, who was the co-inheritors of the network K, seeking cancellation of the registration under the name of the network K, which is the invalid registration that was made in accordance with the title trust agreement, by subrogationing Defendant J, who recovered the ownership, and Defendant B, etc. against this, the purchaser of the instant real estate from Defendant J, not the Plaintiff, but the deceased K, and the deceased K did not receive the title trust of each of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, in case where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized in the creditor subrogation lawsuit, the creditor himself becomes the plaintiff and exercises the right of the third debtor against the debtor.