Where a creditor's subrogation lawsuit is not recognized as a right to the debtor, the creditor subrogation lawsuit is illegal.

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, in case where the right of the creditor to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized as to the debtor, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and is no longer entitled to exercise the right of the debtor to the third debtor, so the subrogation lawsuit shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner.

Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 176 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

2012 Ghana 206242 Registration for cancellation of ownership

IsaA

Maximum II outer four persons

September 14, 2012

October 5, 2012

1. All of the actions against Defendant B, UCC, and Gangwon-do human resources group shall be dismissed;

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

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

1. With respect to the co-ownership transfer registration made on October 14, 2009 under No. 10479, and No. 10480 on October 10, 2005 with respect to the co-ownership transfer registration made on October 10, 2009 at the time when the Chuncheon District Court at any time, when, with respect to Defendant B, and UCC, the Choi II, and UCC, conducted to Defendant III, the procedure for cancellation registration made on January 10, 205 on the ground of invalidation following the principal registration of provisional registration made on January 382 and 383.

2. The defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the Gangwon-do group shall indicate their intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of co-ownership transfer registration under paragraph (1) above.

3. Defendant Choi HH shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership rights based on sale on October 15, 2009, with respect to the above Defendant’s ownership right, which was over 402, 6865m2, Gangwon-do Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, Incheon-do, for the transfer of ownership rights.

1. Basic facts

A. The land before the division of this case was owned by Defendant BB as the 6307/1163 shares, Defendant III as the 4298/1163 shares, and Defendant UJJJ as the 558/1163 shares.

B. Defendant B received on January 10, 2005, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) from the Chuncheon District Court No. 382, which was received on January 10, 2005, with respect to the portion of the land before the split-off, and ① 2645/11163 portion of the land before the split-off, and ② the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was received on January 10, 2005 from the same registry office No. 383, Jan. 10, 2005, and ③ the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) was received on May 9, 2005 by the same registry office No. 3923, May 9, 2005.

C. Defendant B, LB, LII, and UCC did not adjust the above provisional registration, the shares 4298 square meters in Defendant LII in the instant land before the instant partition is 000 square meters in Gangwon-do, Incheon-gun, UOri-do, and the shares of the Defendant B, and UCC are 6865 square meters in this case (=67 square meters + 558 square meters). Accordingly, the land before the instant subdivision was divided into 402 square meters in the same Haririri-ri, 402, and 6865 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on June 11, 2009.

D. After October 6, 2009, the land in this case was caused by partition of co-owned property on October 6, 2009, and ① among them, the land in this case was owned by Defendant UCC as of October 14, 2009 as of the 349/11163 shares of Defendant LII, No. 10479 on October 14, 2009, and as to the 3949/1163 shares of Defendant III, Defendant UCC as of October 14, 2009, and as of the 3949/1163 shares of Defendant III, each ownership transfer registration was filed in this case, as of October 14, 2009, and two UCC were owned by Defendant B, and UCC II was jointly owned by Defendant B, and the land in this case was wholly owned by Defendant N and UCC as of October 14, 2009.

E. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff received the registration for the transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case from Defendant Choi II III on October 23, 2009 on the grounds of a sales contract of KRW 200 million.

F. In accordance with the principal registration based on the first and second provisional registrations, the ownership transfer registration was completed for the instant land, Defendant II III land, and for each of the instant shares 2645/1163 shares on February 8, 2010, under the receipt No. 939 on February 8, 2010, and for each of the instant shares 1653/1163 shares on February 8, 2010 by the same registry office as the receipt of No. 940 on February 8, 2010.

G. As such, the registration of ownership modification was made on October 14, 2009 on the ground of the partition of co-owned shares among Defendant II III land, and the registration of ownership modification was made on October 14, 2009 (2567 = 6865- Provisional Registration 1645- Provisional Registration 2645- Provisional Registration 2653 of this case) and accordingly, the Plaintiff owned not only the entire land but also 6865/1163 shares on the ground of ownership cancellation registration (6865 = 4298 + 2567).

H. On February 22, 2010, Defendant Republic of Korea seized Defendant BB’s 6307/1163 shares and 3949/11163 shares among the instant land, and Defendant Gangwon-do’s Incheon District seized Defendant BB’s 3949/1163 shares among the instant land on June 25, 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] ① The Plaintiff, Defendant III II, thisB, and UCC are the names of the entire arguments and arguments under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for the registration of the transfer with respect to the above defendant's right to share in the land in this case with respect to Defendant B and UCC on behalf of the above defendant, and filed a request with Defendant B and UCC for the registration of the cancellation of each share in this case on October 14, 2009, and with the defendant, the Republic of Korea, and Gangwon-do Human Rights, respectively.

A. The instant partition of co-owned property became null and void due to the principal registration of the instant case 1 and 2 provisional registration, and therefore, the shares of Defendant LII III decreased in Defendant LII land in this case.

B. Defendant B, NCC, is obligated to implement the cancellation registration procedure on October 14, 2009 with respect to the registration of co-ownership transfer of each of the instant land on October 14, 2009, based on the invalidation following the principal registration of the provisional registration No. 1 and No. 2.

C. Since Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant Gangwon-do have registered the seizure of the instant land after provisional registration Nos. 1 and 2, they have the obligation to express their consent to the cancellation of the registration of transfer of the said co-ownership.

D. Defendant II, as a result of the sale on October 15, 2009, is obligated to transfer the above Defendant’s above Defendant’s interest in the land to the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff shall exercise the right to claim for cancellation of the partition of co-owned property registration against the remaining Defendants in subrogation of the said Defendants, on the ground that the right to claim for the registration of transfer of Defendant Ⅱ’s shares hidden in the instant land is the preserved right.

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant BBCC Gangwon-do Human Resources Group in the Republic of Korea

A. Determination as to the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Choi II, the right to be preserved

As new register is opened for each divided part of the registration procedure, and all the rights rights existing on the register before division are transferred for each divided part, and even if security rights, etc. are established for the previous co-owned property, the entire co-owned property remains on the part acquired by the person establishing the right to collateral security, such as general share transfer registration, and it is not naturally concentrated on the part acquired by the person establishing the right to collateral security (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Da24868, Aug. 8, 1989; 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993). In this case, the above four provisional registration was not arranged at the time of the above co-owned property partition, and the co-owned property partition was not established pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Special Act on Co-owned Property Partition, and Article 17-1 of this case and Article 2 of this case's provisional registration cannot be cancelled ex officio with the above 7-1 of this case's maximum co-owned share transfer registration on the land.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the share of Defendant LII III is restored from the land of this case since the partition of co-owned property already completed becomes effective due to the execution of principal registration of the above provisional registration, and otherwise, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant on the premise that there is the share of Defendant II III in the land of this case is without merit.

B. Determination on the legality of a lawsuit

If the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged in the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit, the obligee becomes the Plaintiff and the obligor’s right to the third obligor is nonexistent, and the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14339, Jun. 24, 1994). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the above ownership transfer registration against Defendant III is not recognized. If so, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, UCC, and Gangwon-do human rights group is unlawful because all of the parties are not qualified.

4. 원고의 피고 최QQ에 대한 청구에 관한 판단

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the implementation of the registration procedure for the transfer of the above Defendant’s share in the land in this case to the highest II III, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendant is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, all of the lawsuits against Defendant B, UCC, and Gangwon-do, are dismissed as unlawful, and the claims against Defendant III against Defendant LII are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.