1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on July 7, 1990 for the following reasons: (a) the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was incorporated into the land for the border highway; (b) the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate through consultation around December 31, 1969; and (c) paid the compensation to the deceased H, who was the owner at that time; and (d) the Plaintiff openly and openly held the ownership from July 7, 1970, the unification of the border highway; and (b) Nonparty B, C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “the Nonparty”), the deceased’s heir, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on July 7, 1990.

However, on February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against the Nonparty was pending, the Nonparty completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant on April 4, 2003 (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

Ultimately, in order to avoid the obligation of the Plaintiff to transfer ownership registration, the ownership transfer registration of this case is invalid as the registration of ownership transfer made by the Defendant and the Nonparty through a public invitation or active gathering with each other, and it is invalid as it is an act contrary to social order

Accordingly, in order to preserve the right to claim for ownership transfer registration against the Nonparty, the Plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the Nonparty or the Defendant.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27188, Sept. 29, 2005). The right to preserve a victim in this case.