1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

2. The grounds for use by this court as to each of the above parts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of E, seeks implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the termination of a title trust agreement or the restoration of authentic title in subrogation of E.

The obligee’s subrogation right is premised on the fact that the obligee is entitled to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s subrogation right against the obligor in order to preserve his/her claim. However, when the obligor is granted immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, it is not allowed to exercise the obligee’s subrogation right with the obligee’s bankruptcy claim as the preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da13156, Jun. 23, 2009). E applies for bankruptcy and immunity to the Seoul Central District Court on August 27, 2014 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hau8649, 2014, 8649, Oct. 27, 2015). However, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the above immunity is clearly dismissed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal decision 2015Da2193, supra.

Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement against E arising from the cause before the declaration of bankruptcy is exempted from liability, the plaintiff's exercise of the creditor's subrogation right of this case is unlawful.

Even if otherwise, E held a title trust with the Defendant to evade the Plaintiff’s reimbursement obligation.

. or false representation in collusion.