Whether or not to request the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership due to the invalidity of the cause attributable to the obligee's subrogation where the disposition of non-performance of the reverted property is revoked.

If the disposition of non-performance against the defendant is revoked by the Director-General, on behalf of the country, after the defendant was sub-owned real estate and the registration of ownership transfer was made under his/her name, and the plaintiffs were divided into the above real estate, and such disposition of revocation becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiffs may seek the cancellation of the registration of the name of the defendant

Article 8 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 404 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 65Da1386 decided Sep. 7, 1965 (Law No. 1 (2)94, Ka1645)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court of the first instance (Law No. 4292 inhabitants5168)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, against the Plaintiff, etc., performed the procedure for cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the sale on April 13, 289, which was completed as No. 6491 of the Seoul District Court Decision 6491 on the ground of the 105 Do-dong 2 and No. 57 Ga-dong 2 and the 13 Ga-dong 13 13 Ga-dong 13 13 13 Ga-dong 4282.

Defendant 2 performed the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the site in the preceding port and on the building in the preceding port against Plaintiff 2, the Seoul District Court short-term No. 17143 of July 16, 290 relating to the building in the preceding port, which was completed on July 16, 4290.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

The attorney of the plaintiff (appellant) et al. amended the purport of the claim by seeking a judgment of the main office after the prosecution, and the attorney of the defendant (appellant) et al. seek a judgment dismissing the public prosecution.

The plaintiff et al. (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.")'s representative was the plaintiff 2's representative on April 30, 4287, and the plaintiff 1 was the defendant 2's 3 site of 105 Dong Dong-gu, Seoul. The plaintiff 2 was the plaintiff 2's representative on April 30, 287, and the plaintiff 2 was the plaintiff 1's second 4 site of 12 12 Ma328 (the plaintiff 2 was the joint ownership because the plaintiff 57 square meters were the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' and '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' and ' '' ' '' '' '' '' '' '' '1' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '. ' ' ' ' ' '. '.

The defendant et al.'s attorney, etc. acknowledged that the defendant 2 bank acquired a collateral on the real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer as alleged by the plaintiff et al. among the alleged facts such as the plaintiff et al.'s assertion that the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. had made the registration of ownership transfer, and the fact that the council on the petition for the property devolving upon the property devolving upon the plaintiff et al. judged that the defendant et al. decided that the plaintiff et al. cancelled the disposition of non-performance against the defendant 1. In other words, although the above judgment of appeal was just, it was not revoked by the government

With evidence, the plaintiff et al. submitted the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7-1, 8-4 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the defendant et al. recognizes all the establishment of evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

In light of the above evidence No. 2-1 and No. 7-2, it can be acknowledged that the land and house including the above real estate of the plaintiff et al. were divided as alleged in the plaintiff et al., and the above disposition of the plaintiff et al. was revoked on the part of the plaintiff et al., but the above disposition of the plaintiff et al. was revoked on the part of the plaintiff et al., but the above disposition of the plaintiff et al. was determined in favor of the plaintiff et al., and the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 9, 292, and the fact that the plaintiff et al. acquired the right of the plaintiff et al. from the plaintiff et al. was not registered on the part of the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. was not revoked on the part of the plaintiff et al., which was not established on the ground that the plaintiff et al.'s first disposition on the part of the plaintiff et al., which was not established on the ground that the plaintiff et al. had no legitimate reason.

Judges Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)