(a) Where a creditor's subrogation right is exercised in court, matters to be proved; and

(b) Whether the applicant for the issuance of a certificate is entitled to a presumption of legality by a letter of guarantee made as one of the guarantors under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of the previous real estate and a written confirmation based thereon;

A. The obligee's subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Code refers to the obligee's right to exercise the obligor'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, it is sufficient if the preservation of the preserved claim is necessary and the due date comes, and it does not require any interference to exercise the subrogation right regardless of the cause of the claim, and it does not require that the obligor's right to a third party can be set up against the obligor. Thus, in a case where the obligee's subrogation right is exercised, it is sufficient that the obligee can prove the existence of the claim and the necessity of preservation, the arrival of the due date, etc., even in a case where the obligee exercises the obligee's subrogation right, and there is no need to prove the fact of the cause of the

B. The former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3562), considering the circumstances that the transferee of real estate is unable to register due to the missing of the owner registered in the public register, unknown whereabouts of descendants after the death, etc., requires that the transferee of real estate preserve ownership or transfer registration in the name of the de facto owner in lieu of the grounds for registration after obtaining a written confirmation issued by the pertinent competent authority, if there is no objection to the registration, accompanied by a guarantee certificate issued by three or more persons residing in the same Dong for a fixed period of time. The registration under the same Act is completed based on the unilateral intent of the applicant for the issuance of a letter of confirmation claiming that the person liable for registration is the de facto owner regardless of the intention of the person liable for registration, regardless of the intention of the person liable for registration, and thus, in light of the purport of the same Act, the third guarantor requested by the same Act refers to a third party other than the applicant for the issuance of a certificate to register under the same Act. Therefore, if the person commissioned as the guarantor intends to obtain registration on the land in question under the same Act, it cannot be justified.

A. Article 404 of the Civil Act: Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 6 and Article 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Law No. 3562)

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da283 delivered on August 24, 1982 (Gong1982, 876) (Gong1988, 580) Decision 87Da911 delivered on February 23, 1988 (Gong1988, 580) (Gong144 delivered on June 27, 198), Supreme Court Decision 91Da3215, 322 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1500) (Gong1991, 1500).

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

Jeonju District Court Decision 93Na497 delivered on July 7, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The obligee’s subrogation right under Article 404 of the Civil Act refers to the right to exercise the obligee’s subrogation right against a third party, if it is necessary for the obligee to preserve his own claim against the obligor. In this case, it is sufficient if the preservation of the preserved claim is recognized and its due date has expired, and it does not require any interference in exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, and it does not require that the obligee’s subrogation right against the obligor can be set up against the third party obligor. Thus, in cases where the obligee exercises the obligee’s subrogation right, it is sufficient that the obligee has proved the existence of the claim, necessity for preservation, and due date, etc., and it is not necessary to prove the existence of the claim or that the claim is a claim that can be set up against the third party obligor. In this case, it is not necessary to establish the existence of the claim, or that the claim is a claim that can be set up against the said third party’s obligor. The above obligee’s subrogation right is exercised by subrogation against the deceased Nonparty 1 who was the first co-owner’s heir.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the plaintiff 1 won the plaintiff 1's lawsuit against the above non-party 1's heir was sentenced to the plaintiff's winning judgment in the first instance court of the lawsuit, which recognized the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive without appeal, and the decision that did not separately deliberate and decide on whether the plaintiff 1's assertion was sold or not is just, and there is no violation of law of omission of judgment

On the second ground for appeal

The Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Article 3562 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate) provides that if a transferee of a real estate is unable to make a registration due to the missing of an owner registered in the public register, unknown whereabouts of his/her descendants after death, etc., he/she shall give public notice by attaching a written confirmation issued by the relevant competent authority for a certain period of time to the owner in lieu of a cause for registration document. Since registration under the Act is made based on the guarantor's guarantee certificate regardless of the intent of the person liable for registration, and the registration under the Act requires at least three guarantors' guarantee in order to secure the authenticity of the registration (Article 6 and Article 10 of the same Act). In light of the purport of the above Act, it shall be interpreted that three guarantors requested by the above Act refers to a third party other than the application for the issuance of a certificate under the Act, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the person liable for registration is not entitled to obtain a certification under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate 20.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case issued by the defendant 3 himself in the condition that the applicant for the issuance of the certificate was included as one of the guarantor, and that the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case was null and void, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like theory of lawsuit.

In addition, if there are three persons commissioned as guarantors at the location of the land in this case, registration under the Act on Special Measures cannot be made unless the defendant 3, who is commissioned as guarantor, becomes the person of guarantor, and thus, even if the applicant becomes the person of guarantor, registration under the Act on Special Measures should be valid. Thus, the court below should have deliberated and seen whether there are several persons at the location of the land in this case as guarantor at the time of the above registration. However, according to Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures, the court below should appoint three to five suretys at the location of real estate. Thus, if the person commissioned as guarantor at the location of the land in this case was only three persons, it is more commissioned as guarantor at the request of the competent government office, and a guarantee certificate from three guarantors except for himself, or if it is prepared by the third guarantor, it is not necessary to establish a new guarantee certificate of the guarantor at the time of issuance of the land in this case, and therefore, it is not necessary to establish a new guarantee certificate for the plaintiffs' new guarantor at the location in this case.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records of this case, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff 1 cannot assert the invalidity of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the plaintiff 1/3's 1/3's 1/3's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Plaintiff 1’s possession of Plaintiff 1’s above ( Address 2 omitted) forest No. 4,824m2 in forest No. 4,505m2 in forest No. 3,505, instead of acquiring ownership of all of the forest No. 4,824m2 in forest No. e., the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prescriptive acquisition of jointly-owned property, such as theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)