The costs of the appeal lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

According to the records and the original judgment, even though Defendant 1 purchased the land in question from Nonparty 1 in the original judgment, and even if he did not have the right to act on behalf of the plaintiff, Defendant 1 asserted facts as to the fact that there was a justifiable reason to believe that he had the right to act on behalf of the plaintiff, and the original judgment was also judged on such facts. The theory of lawsuit asserts that Defendant 1 had a justifiable reason to believe that the original judgment was the right to act on behalf of the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 who owned the land in question, and that the original judgment did not recognize the relation between the above two persons who purchased the land in question and that there was no reason to act on behalf of the plaintiff, it is obvious that the court below did not have any reason to act on behalf of the non-party 2.

According to the court below's decision, as the plaintiff's judgment Nos. 4, 1, and 4, the court below found that the non-party 1's wife was forced to sell the original land of this case by defendant 1, and that the non-party 2's mother 3 had caused the non-party 1 to put the seals of the non-party 2 to the defendant 1, and it was clear that the non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 did not have the purport of recognizing that the contract was established for the land of this case between the defendant 1 and the above non-party 1, the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the part of the court's decision that found that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the contract was concluded for the land of this case between the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 in the 5th 910 original judgment, and there was no error of law as to the existence of evidence or fact-finding in this part of the original judgment's judgment, and the court below rejected the above legal reasoning as to the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff 1 and the above were legitimate.

The judgment as to the third ground of appeal, and Article 404 of the Civil Code, it is interpreted that the right of the debtor to exercise his claim in order to preserve his claim includes not only the net right but also the real right claim. Thus, it cannot be said that the original judgment recognized that the plaintiff did not have a real right claim against the defendant for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the original land, and there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the measures accepting the claim for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of the original case against the defendant by subrogation of the debtor (the title holder) Nonparty 2 in lieu of the debtor (the title holder)

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)