소유권이전등기말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) under Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court shall dismiss the "payment by subrogation" of the second instance as "payment by subrogation"; and (b) except where the plaintiff added the following judgment as to the allegations that came into the court of first instance, all of the claims added to this court are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; (c) therefore, they shall be cited as it is in accordance
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) F and G, who are their children, completed the registration of ownership transfer after being awarded a successful bid in the name of the Plaintiff and C, and the loan obligation, which is the collateral obligation of the instant right to collateral security, was also borne by F, and the said loan obligation is not the Defendant, but C. Therefore, even if C repaid the said loan obligation, it may not subrogate the obligee against the Plaintiff, not the actual obligor. Even if C may subrogate the obligee against the Plaintiff, even if C may not subrogate the obligee. (2) Even if C is able to subrogate the obligee against the Plaintiff, it may subrogate the obligee only for the remainder of KRW 30,000,00,000, out of the loan obligation repaid by C when considering that C is a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant real estate, and in this case, C, who is the debtor, obtains the legal subrogation right against the Defendant, who acquired the 1/2 equity interest of the instant
In addition, C’s transfer of the claim acquired by C upon repayment of the loan obligation as above and by subrogation of the obligee to the Defendant is null and void as it was solely conducted for the purpose of conducting procedural acts, and the valid assignment of the claim has not
B. First of all, whether a title trust relationship is established between FF,G, and Plaintiff and C with respect to each share of the instant real estate, and whether a loan obligation, which is the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, is F, not the Plaintiff, i.e., F, and B’s evidence 11-12.