1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is used as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Each “this Court” of the first instance judgment Nos. 4, 17, 5, and 8 shall be deemed to be the original district court, respectively.

B. On the 5th and 10th of the first instance judgment, the phrase “from the Plaintiff” shall be “from the Defendant B”.

C. Each of the 5th, 19th, 7th, and 15th, 5th, 5th, 5th, is the witness of the first instance court.

On the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the "this court" in the 5th judgment is regarded as the "court of the first instance."

(e) Parts 9, 2, and 8 of the first instance judgment are as follows:

1) Defendant B’s assertion in collusion with Defendant C for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s obligation, concluded the instant reservation, and completed the instant provisional registration to Defendant C, which constitutes a false representation of agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void as it constitutes a false representation of agreement. Thus, in a creditor subrogation lawsuit, if the obligee’s right to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized in order to preserve the claim against the Defendant B, the obligee becomes the Plaintiff himself and becomes the Plaintiff and becomes the third obligor, and thus, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da8996, Jul. 28, 1992). The issue of whether the obligee’s right of subrogation as the exercise of the creditor’s right of subrogation is necessary to preserve the claim should be determined at the time of closing argument, and if the claim is a monetary claim, it is necessary to prevent the decrease in general property by the obligor’s insolvency.