The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff against the defendant B is reversed, and the judgment of the first instance corresponding to this part is reversed.

1. Determination ex officio as to Defendant B’s appeal

A. In order for a creditor to preserve a creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's subrogation right to the debtor's third party, it is necessary to preserve a creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's claim against the debtor.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da55171 Decided May 10, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43597 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.) B.

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant V had the right to claim ownership transfer registration regarding the share of 472.96/1,705 square meters of O forest in Jung-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”). In order to preserve the right to claim, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant V for the registration of ownership transfer regarding the share of 897.03/1,705 square meters of the instant land on behalf of Defendant V in subrogation of Defendant V.

However, the obligee’s subrogation right can be exercised only when the obligee’s claim is preserved by exercising the obligor’s subrogation right. Thus, the Plaintiff can exercise the obligee’s right to claim ownership transfer registration against Defendant V only within the scope of the share of 472.96/1,705 of the instant land in which the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant V has the obligee’s right to claim ownership transfer registration, and there is no need to preserve the excess portion.

Therefore, the lawsuit on the subrogation of the excess share is unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on behalf of Defendant V, dismissed the part of the claim by the Plaintiff seeking the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to the portion exceeding 472.96/1,705 shares of the instant land among the instant land on behalf of Defendant B.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements of creditor subrogation lawsuit.

2...