1. The lawsuit of this case that is changed in exchange at the trial shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from E, the original purchaser of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer. The Plaintiff is a de facto owner, who is the Plaintiff’s owner, without title. The instant building owned by the Defendant is occupied without title.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent from the date of delivery and delivery to the Plaintiff against the Defendant, who is an illegal occupant by subrogation of E, who is the original acquisitor and seller of the instant building.

2. In the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, in a case where the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged, the obligee becomes the obligee himself/herself and the obligor’s right to the third obligor is no longer entitled to exercise the obligor’s right to the third obligor, and thus, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27188 Decided September 29, 2005). The plaintiff claims in this case by subrogation of E, and the preserved claim is the right to claim the delivery of the building of this case. Thus, the existence of the plaintiff's right to claim the delivery of the building of this case against E is a matter of eligibility of the plaintiff as a substitute requirement prior to the judgment on the merits.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was completed on October 14, 2013 with respect to the land in North Korea-gun C and D, which is the site of the building of this case. The building of this case is currently unregistered and is registered as E in the general building ledger. Even if all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff are comprehensive, there is no evidence to prove that Eul is the original purchaser of the building of this case and the seller selling the building of this case to the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff in the first instance trial is different from the judgment of the court of first instance.