(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.08.27 2014나53899

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.08.27 2014나53899

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is by the main text of

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since a sales contract concluded on July 30, 200 between H and Thai as of July 30, 2003 and the Defendants concluded on July 10, 2013 between the primary claim are null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, Tae Metal is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the transfer registration of shares in the name of Tae Metal as to each of the instant real estate, which is a sole heir of H. In order to preserve the right to claim for registration of cancellation, the Plaintiff seeks the Defendants to register cancellation of shares in the name of the Defendants as to each of the instant real estate on behalf of Tae Young Metal in order to preserve the right to claim for registration of cancellation.

B. Each of the instant preliminary claims was owned by H 3/5 shares and Defendant B 2/5 shares, but H paid 1,00,000,000 won for the secured debt, which was established on each of the instant real estate, and cancelled the registration of creation of a new mortgage, with the proceeds from the sale of each of the instant real estate by selling the shares of each of the instant real estate in solar metal. As such, Defendant B was unjustly entitled to KRW 400,000,000 for the secured debt, which amounted to 2/5 of the secured debt, and the Plaintiff, a sole heir of H, sought payment from Defendant B of KRW 400,000 for unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized in a creditor subrogation lawsuit, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and has no standing to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor. Therefore, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

With respect to whether the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the solar metal as the preserved bond exists in the primary claim of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.08.16 2015나5549

-수원지방법원여주지원 2020.02.19 2017가단5817

-광주지방법원목포지원 2017.06.28 2017가단50233

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.09.21 2016가단105198