(a) Claims to be preserved by creditor's subrogation right; and

B. Whether a seller's right to demand the performance of his/her duty of cooperation can be preserved by a creditor's subrogation where the land is purchased within the land transaction regulation zone without permission

A. The creditor's subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Code refers to the right of the debtor to exercise the right to a third party on behalf of the debtor in case where the creditor needs to preserve his claim against the debtor. In this case, the preserved claim is sufficient if the necessity of preservation is recognized regardless of the cause thereof and the due date comes.

B. Even if a sale contract is concluded without the permission of the competent authority on the land within the land transaction regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the parties to the contract are obligated to cooperate so that the contract can be completed as effective, and both parties to the contract are jointly obligated to apply for the permission of the competent authority, and the other party is entitled to claim for the performance of the duty of cooperation against the party who does not cooperate in the application for permission in breach of such duty. Thus, the right of the buyer to claim for the performance of the duty of cooperation in the procedure of land transaction permission held against the seller constitutes a claim that

(b)Article 404(b) of the Civil Code, article 21ter(1) and article 21ter(7) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da39369 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1310), Supreme Court Decision 92Da56575 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1159), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4806 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 658)

South Won-Pap Mazop Mazop Mazop

Defendant 1 and 25 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na30077 delivered on April 18, 1995

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The obligee’s subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Act refers to the right of the obligor to exercise the obligee’s right to a third party in a case where it is necessary for the obligee to preserve his claim against the obligor. In this case, the secured claim is sufficient if the necessity of preservation is recognized regardless of the cause thereof and the due date comes (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu961, Feb. 23, 198).

Meanwhile, even if a sale contract is concluded without the permission of the competent authority on the land within the land transaction regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the parties to the contract have a duty to cooperate so that the contract can be completed as effective, and both parties to the contract have a duty to jointly apply for the permission of the competent authority, and the other party can claim for the performance of the duty of cooperation against the party who does not cooperate in the application for permission by violating such duty (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on October 24, 191; Supreme Court Decision 92Da34414 delivered on October 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da3414 delivered on October 27, 1992). Accordingly, the right of the buyer to claim for the performance of the duty of cooperation in the procedure of permission for land transaction is also a claim that can be compensated by the exercise of the creditor's subrogation right (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da56575 delivered on March 9, 1993).

(2) According to the court below's determination, each of the lands of this case was owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, etc. who were owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, etc., and the non-party 1 transferred each of the lands of this case within the land transaction regulation area to the plaintiff clan and granted the right of representation for the exercise of the right of termination of title trust to the title trustee. Thus, even if the transfer contract for each of the lands of this case between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1

As to each of the lands of this case, the plaintiff clans may cancel the title trust on behalf of the non-party clans, and seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust in subrogation of the non-party clans in order to preserve the right to claim the performance of the duty to cooperate in the procedure for registration of land transaction permission against the non-party clans. The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of damages. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)