1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the Defendants is revoked.

2. The case is remanded to the first instance court.

purport, purport, and.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On January 6, 1990, the instant land was sold to Defendant B, to Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial on November 24, 1990, and to the Plaintiff on February 18, 1996, respectively. Defendant D solely inherited the instant land by agreement and division with the deceased F’s heir.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant C and B regarding the instant land by subrogationing the Defendant C and B, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the sale on January 6, 1990, and to Defendant C’s subrogation regarding the instant land, respectively.

Judgment

In a claim by a creditor of relevant legal principles against a third party by exercising a creditor's subrogation right, the third debtor cannot set up a defense against the debtor against the creditor, and in principle, the person who is entitled to invoke it when the prescription of the claim is completed is only the person who is entitled to benefit of prescription, and the third debtor of the creditor's subrogation lawsuit cannot exercise it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10151 Decided February 12, 2004, etc.). The first instance court dismissed the instant lawsuit ex officio by determining that the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration against C, a preserved bond, has expired by prescription after the lapse of ten years from February 18, 1996, which was the date of the sales contract between the Plaintiff and C, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The extinctive prescription is subject to the judgment of the court only when the parties so assert, and in light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, the Defendants, other than C, cannot exercise the aforementioned extinctive prescription defense as a third party. Therefore, the court should not determine that the preserved claim was extinguished ex officio on the ground that the extinctive prescription

Rather, the plaintiff's claim against C is affirmed in the first instance court, and the above defendant receives a duplicate of the complaint of this case as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.