In a necessary co-litigation, the legality of the judgment by separating one of the co-defendants who accepted the plaintiff's claim and the other defendants;

In a lawsuit claiming a cancellation of registration of transfer in the name of joint mining right holders, all of the registered titleholders shall be the defendant, and it is unlawful to treat one of the joint defendants as effective for recognition and recognition of one of the joint defendants, even though they cannot be considered as disadvantageous to other defendants, etc., and to treat the lawsuit against the other defendants as being terminated separately from the lawsuit of the other defendants, etc., and to render a judgment only against the other defendants, etc.

Article 62 of the former Civil Procedure Act

1,000,000

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court of the first instance (Law No. 4291 Residents852)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

This case is remanded to the Seoul District Court.

The original judgment is revoked. The litigation representative of the defendant et al. (appellant) shall be dismissed. The litigation costs are to be borne by the plaintiff et al., but if this is groundless, the original judgment shall be revoked. If the plaintiff et al. seeks a judgment to remand this case to Seoul District Court, and the litigation representative of the plaintiff et al. is dismissed. The public prosecution costs are to be borne by the defendant et al.

As a factual assertion of both parties and evidence, the obligee’s subrogation right granted to the obligee under Article 423 of the Civil Act is merely a vicarious exercise of the obligee’s right to preserve his own claim. Thus, if the obligor had already exercised his right to defense, the obligee cannot exercise it again regardless of the extent of the outcome, and even if the obligee did not exercise his right to subrogation, the obligee did not notify the obligor of the fact that he had exercised his right to subrogation, so the obligee’s right to demand reimbursement would be unlawful if the obligor did not exercise his right to demand reimbursement against the third obligor. However, the obligee’s subrogation right was first filed on September 22, 4285, and the obligor did not exercise his right to demand reimbursement against the Plaintiff’s non-party 1’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party-party-1 and the non-party-party-party-1’s non-party-party-party-party-6’s non-party-party-party-party-party-appellant’s right to demand reimbursement.

First of all, since the purpose of this lawsuit against the defendant, etc. is to revoke the registration of transfer by donation No. 27293 on May 8, 286, because it is evident in the records, it is obvious that the court below's judgment should be applied to all of the persons registered as the defendant under the name of the defendant 1, 2, and the non-party 1, and it is clear that the court below's judgment should be applied to the non-party 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 2, 281 hectares, 272 to the mining area No. 2728 on April 18, 286, 251 to the non-party 1, 251, 27, 3, 3,251, 3, 251, 27, 3, 3,2, 3, 3, 3,2, 3,2, 3, 3, 3,2, 1, 3,2, 1, 1,2, 1,2,2, excluding the defendant.

Judges Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)