Where a dispute arises between a third party and an obligor with respect to the right of a debtor which is the object of subrogation by the creditor, and the exercise of the right of subrogation by the creditor.

In a case where a dispute arises between a third party and an obligor as a result of a interference with the obligee’s right which has been the object of subrogation, the obligee’s claim against the obligor is also placed in an unstable state due to actual influence on the obligee’s content. Therefore, the obligee may, on behalf of the obligor, seek the confirmation of the obligor’s right against the third party and the removal of the disturbance, and if necessary, file a lawsuit against the third party to confirm the legal relationship.

Plaintiff 1 and one other Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Jae-ok, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 2-appellee

Defendant 1 and two Defendants 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Representatives of the Republic of Korea Law, the Minister of Justice's Dominsan Law, the Domination of the litigation performer, and the number of south paths

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na239 delivered on July 20, 1973

The part of the original judgment dismissing Plaintiff 2’s claim is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining part of the appeal by Plaintiff 2 and the appeal by Plaintiff 1 are dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of Plaintiff 2’s appeal are assessed against the same Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by Plaintiff 1 are assessed against the same Plaintiff.

1. The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 2 are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief subsequent to its submission period).

According to the records, the non-party 2, who purchased the above non-party 1's land from the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'6's non-party 1'.

Even if the court below determined the records, it cannot be seen that there is a defect that can be deemed that the court below erred in the selection of evidence and the judgment of evidence evidence in the above recognition process, and therefore, the issue of this point is concerned with controversy over the whole matters of the court below, which is the fact-finding court, and the purpose of this point is to reconstruct the registration destroyed by simply responding to the substantive relations at the time when the registration is destroyed or lost by the registration is announced, and the purport of this procedure is to specify the priority number of the previous registration in the application form and to attach the certificate of completion of the previous registration (see Article 71 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act), it is limited to the same nature as above in the procedure of restoration registration (see Article 71 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act). In this case, even if the above application form was entered in the application form for registration of restoration registration, it is hard to see that the previous registration was received, month, and the date and serial number of the previous registration form as well as the previous registration form as the previous registration form, and it cannot be found that the land was destroyed or lost as a copy of the previous registration form.

2. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are examined.

The obligee may exercise the obligor’s right on behalf of the obligor in order to preserve the obligor’s claim. If the obligee’s right which became the object of subrogation is obstructed by a third party and there is no dispute between the obligor and the third party, the obligee’s claim against the obligor should also be affected by its substance and thus, the obligee’s claim against the obligor should be placed in an unstable state. Therefore, the obligee may subrogated the obligor to remove the unstable state of the content of the claim and preserve the obligee’s right against the third party and seek the confirmation of the obligee’s right and removal of the disturbance. If necessary, the obligee may file a lawsuit against the third party on behalf of the obligor for confirmation of the legal relationship. (See Supreme Court Decision 68Da239, Mar. 26, 1968) The obligee’s claim for ownership transfer registration on each of the above land purchased from Nonparty 3 in order to verify that the obligee’s right was infringed by the Nonparty’s right holder’s rejection of the claim against the non-party’s above land under his name and it is not clear that the obligee’s right was owned by the non-party.

3. Therefore, since the part on the above part of the plaintiffs' appeal of this case is justifiable, the part on which the plaintiff 2's claim among the original judgment dismissed is reversed pursuant to Articles 400 and 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The other part of the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Articles 400, 395, and 384 (1) of the same Act, and the other part of the appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who apply Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit by the plaintiff 1.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)