The dismissed part of the lawsuit shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

(q) the remainder;

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, (1) The lower court determined that the instant real estate transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and C falls under the category of seeking the return of title trust real estate under the premise that the title trust agreement null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is valid, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against C is not legally permitted from the beginning. Thus, even if the Plaintiff obtained a final and conclusive judgment against C, even if the Plaintiff obtained a final and conclusive judgment ordering C to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership concerning the instant real estate due to the above agreement, the need to refuse legal assistance for the realization of the above right to claim the transfer registration cannot be deemed to have ceased. Accordingly, the lower court rejected this part of the lawsuit.

(2) The above determination by the court below cannot be accepted.

The creditor's subrogation right stipulated in Article 404 of the Civil Code refers to the right of subrogation of the debtor when the creditor needs to preserve his/her own claim against the debtor, so the necessity of preserving the preserved claim should be recognized.

Here, the necessity of preservation is closely related to the obligee's right to preserve and the obligor's right to exercise by subrogation, and the obligor's right to exercise by subrogation is at risk of not being able to obtain the complete satisfaction of the obligor's right unless the obligee exercises by subrogation of the obligor's right.