본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.02 2017나2020157

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed by this court.


The reasons for the court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "The plaintiff's assertion of 2.2." in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "2. The plaintiff's primary assertion"; "3.3" in Part 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "the judgment of the main claim of 3.3.3."; "I land" in Part 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "the adjacent land of this case"

2. As to the conjunctive claim added by the Plaintiff in this Court, “The grounds for the judgment of the first instance court other than adding “the determination of the conjunctive claim” are the same as that of the instant judgment. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On May 9, 1979, the Plaintiff asserted the conjunctive claim and occupied the instant land with the intention of ownership ownership for at least 20 years after purchasing the land from H with the instant adjacent land and delivering it. The Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition. Meanwhile, as long as E was assessed on the instant land, registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name as to the instant land is invalid.

Therefore, the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to claim the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer of the instant land owned by E in subrogation of E with the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of E as the preserved bond.


In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized as to the debtor, the creditor becomes the plaintiff himself/herself and becomes disqualified as a party to exercise the right to the third debtor, so the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27188, Sept. 29, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, whether there exists the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration against E.