1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3...

1. The Plaintiff’s father’s father He (Fmp 18 years old) purchased the instant land from G (Fmp 19 years old, Fmp 1035 square meters on April 4, 1970, which was owned by G (Fmp 19 years old, the Plaintiff’s father’s Mah (Fmp 18 years old) owned the instant land, and occupied the instant land by defending and managing the graves of H, I, and his wife on the instant land at the time when he purchased the instant land from G (Fm 19 years old, the 10-year old, the 10-year old, and after the deceased on September 4, 2006, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by inheritance.

On April 30, 1990, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 30, 1990 against Defendant B, who is the owner on the registry of the instant land. The instant land is unregistered, and only the name of Defendant B was registered as the owner on the land cadastre, and it cannot be identified as the owner on the ground that the resident registration number and address are not indicated. As a creditor who is the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition against Defendant B, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the instant land was owned by Defendant D by proxy against

2. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the network E occupied the land of this case from April 1, 1970 to April 30, 1990 only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 10 (including paper numbers). Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B based on such premise is without merit.

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation against the debtor is not recognized, the creditor himself becomes the plaintiff and becomes disqualified as the plaintiff to exercise the debtor's right against the third debtor, and such subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da48857, Jul. 13, 1993). As seen above, the plaintiff has a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant B.