Whether it is authorized to subrogate the registration of transfer

The plaintiffs are not entitled to subrogate the defendant due to the lack of the right to claim for transfer registration. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the remaining defendants, the creditor subrogation lawsuit, is unlawful.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the ○○○ type of Geum Gung Gung-dong, the registration procedure for cancellation shall be implemented with respect to the portion of 11/14 out of the registration of ownership transfer completed on March 15, 1985 under the receipt of No. 4839, which was completed on March 15, 1985, with respect to the portion of 11/14 square meters among the registration of ownership transfer completed on March 15, 1985.

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

3. Defendant Kim Jin-jin, Kim○-si, Kim○-o, Kim○-o, Kim○-o, Korea, and Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the husband and wife between the defendant Kim Jong-sung and the defendant Kim Jong-sung ○○ shall be borne by the above defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively.

On February 28, 1868, on the part of the plaintiffs' inheritance shares, the defendant Park Jong-ok completed the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership with respect to each of the shares of 1/7 shares, which are the shares of the plaintiffs' inheritance, on the ground that the forest of this case was traded by the plaintiffs.

(2) On the registration of the ownership transfer of Defendant 1-6, the registration of the ownership transfer of Defendant 1-6 to Defendant 2-6-1-6-6-6-1-6-6-1-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-8-7-1-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-8-7-1-7-8-7-8-7-9-7-9-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-9-7-7-7-1-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-9-7-7-1-6-7-7-7-9-7-9-7-1-6-1-6-7-7-9-7-9-7-1-6-7-77-1987-7-9-7-19-7-7-19-7-7-7-19-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-1-1-7.

1. The plaintiffs' claims

Under the premise that on February 28, 1968, the Plaintiffs, some of the children of the deceased Kim Jong-dong, who were residing in Japan, purchased the land size of 75-○ Forest No. 286 square meters from the defendant Park Jong-dong, ○○, ○○, ○○, in the instant case, from the defendant Park Jong-jin, in order to use it as a clan's mountain, the plaintiffs were trusted only the registered name in the name of the defendant Kim Kim-jin, the south, and as shown in the attached form of the claim, file for a registration of the change of the number of the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance according to the initial sales contract. The remaining Defendants, as in the attached form of the claim, seek for a registration of the ownership of the title trust registration, by subrogation of the defendant Park Jong-jin, who returned the ownership of the registration that was null and void.

2. As to the defendant clan

Judgment of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. As to the remaining Defendants

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the deceased Kim-map purchased the forest of this case from Defendant Park Jong-kak, in order to prepare for the place of attachment on February 28, 1968, immediately before the death of the deceased Kim-map, one's own attachment, and the fact that it was registered in the name of Defendant Kim-jin, the south of the Republic of Korea, is recognized.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant Kim Jin constitutes the registration of title trust solely on the ground that some of the deceased relatives were buried in the forest of this case under the consent of the deceased Kim Jong-jin or the defendant Kim Jong-jin, along with the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including the paper numbers), and that he purchased the forest of this case for the purpose of the deceased Kim Jong-gun's funeral, and that there is no other evidence to conclude that the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant Kim Jin constitutes the registration of title trust. Thus, it is not acceptable to request again the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant Kim Jong-jin on the premise that the registration of title transfer falls under the registration of a simple title trust, and as a result, the plaintiffs did not have the right to claim for registration of transfer to Defendant Park Jong-jin, and thus, the remaining Defendants,

Conclusion

Therefore, the claim against the defendant clan shall be accepted, and the claim against the defendant's gambling shall be dismissed, and the lawsuit against the remaining defendants shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.