The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In case where a creditor subrogation lawsuit is pending in the court on behalf of the same garnishee and the same garnishee has been instituted on behalf of the same debtor, if the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same as that of the two lawsuits, the lawsuit which last has continued to exist in the court on account of the unlawful lawsuit filed in violation of the prohibition of double lawsuit. In this case, the criteria for determining the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit shall follow the time when the lawsuit has occurred, that is, when the complaint has been served on the defendant;

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Da3155 Decided April 11, 1989 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Da3155, Apr. 11, 1989). If a prior suit was filed with respect to the same case as a matter of course due to the continuation of a lawsuit, even if the prior suit is deemed unlawful due to a defect in the requirements for the lawsuit, the subsequent suit violates the prohibition of double suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45532, Feb. 27, 1998). 2. The following facts are known by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, or are significant in this court.

On June 17, 2015, AD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AD”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on behalf of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap538798 (hereinafter referred to as “C”) against the Defendant to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter referred to as “pre-appeal”) with respect to each of 11/154 shares of each of the units of the instant reconstruction building, including the instant real estate, on behalf of the Defendant. The duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on June 25, 2015.

B. On July 15, 2016, the first instance court of the previous lawsuit rendered a judgment dismissing the said lawsuit on the ground that it was unlawful because it did not meet the qualification as a party to the creditor subrogation lawsuit, as the preserved claim against AD was not recognized. Accordingly, AD appeal is filed by the Seoul High Court.