1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 1954, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the reversion of rights on September 13, 194, with respect to the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. With respect to the share of 30/79 of the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed from the Defendant on April 2, 1954 to D, from D on November 3, 1959 to E, from E on March 21, 1980 to F on March 21, 1980.

C. With respect to the share of 49/79 of the instant land, G from the Defendant on October 13, 1958, from G to H on November 19, 1959, from H on August 26, 1961, from H to H on August 26, 1961, from J from I on September 30, 1964, from J to J on April 2, 1974, and from K to F on April 4, 197, the ownership transfer registration was completed due to each share transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was originally owned by Japan, and was the Defendant’s property reverted to Japan on August 15, 1945. G received 26.5/79 shares and B 22.5/79 shares (hereinafter “instant land shares”) from each Defendant among the instant land, which is the property devolving upon December 31, 1954, and purchased the instant land shares from B on March 20, 1975.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks the implementation of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership of the instant land portion against the Defendant in subrogation of B by claiming the transfer registration of ownership of the instant land portion as the preserved bond.

3. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and the debtor's right to the third debtor is no longer entitled to exercise the right against the third debtor, and such subrogation lawsuit shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da46475 Decided February 13, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da46475 Decided September 29, 2005.