If the right of the obligee to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized in a creditor subrogation lawsuit, whether such subrogation lawsuit is appropriate;

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and is no longer entitled to exercise the right of the debtor to the third debtor, so the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

Supreme Court Decision 91Da13243 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2424) and 92Da896 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2559) decided July 13, 1993 (Gong193, 22555)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Cheongju District Court Decision 93Na1689 delivered on January 27, 1994

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the first instance are reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio.

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, if the right of the creditor to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized as to the debtor, the creditor becomes the plaintiff himself and becomes disqualified as a party to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor, so the subrogation lawsuit shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da896, Jul. 28, 1992; 92Da48857, Jul. 13, 1993).

According to the records, the plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. The plaintiff, on December 28, 1929, transferred each of the above real estate from the non-party state (state), who is the title holder of this case, and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer accordingly, but transferred the name of the owner on the old forest ledger to the non-party 1. However, after the death of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, one of his co-inheritors, was issued a false guarantee of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership, which was in force on July 15, 1970, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above non-party 3. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the above non-party 3. The plaintiff asserted that the ownership transfer registration of each of the above real estate was completed again, and by subrogation of the above non-party 1's property successor, the above non-party 2, who is the property successor of the above non-party 3.

However, according to the plaintiff's above assertion itself, the plaintiff merely entered the name of the owner in the previous forestry register in the name of the above non-party 1 and did not complete the registration of ownership under the title trust to that person. Thus, in relation to the above non-party 1 or his/her property inheritors, the plaintiff does not have the right to claim the execution of the registration procedure on ownership as the reason of termination of the title trust relation. Thus, in order to preserve the above right to claim the registration of ownership against the above non-party 1's property inheritors, the lawsuit of this case in which the plaintiff exercised the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendants of the above property successors in order to preserve the above right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against the above non-party 1's above property successors, should have been dismissed. However, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case by entering the main part and

Therefore, without any need to go through a judgment on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is obvious that the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case as well as the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful. The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)