In case of a claim by subrogation of a creditor, if the third debtor orders the delivery of the object to the creditor.

A. Even though a creditor's subrogation right is a creditor's inherent right, it is a principle that the debtor claims the third debtor to pay a certain benefit to the third debtor when the creditor exercises the subrogation right because it is merely an exercise of the creditor's inherent right against the third debtor.

(b) In the case of farmland in water welfare districts which can not be cultivated by their remaining land in the future after the sunset, it is not by the owner’s intention that the land is not cultivated at the time of enforcement of this Act, but by the implementation of this Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land was sold to the State.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Jae-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 65Na775 delivered on May 9, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant et al., the obligee's subrogation right is merely an exercise of the obligee's inherent right by subrogation against the obligee's third obligor. Thus, in a case where the obligee exercises the obligee's subrogation right, it is in principle that the obligee claims against the third obligor to pay a certain amount of performance (if the obligor claims against the third obligor to deliver the subject matter, if the obligor fails to deliver it, the obligee can claim to deliver it to the obligee because it is impossible for the obligee to reach its objective). Thus, the court below is just in holding that the court below's decision that the obligor against the third obligor against the plaintiff, the obligor, by exercising the obligee's subrogation right, should cancel each registration of the subject matter of this case against the non-party 1, the obligor against the third obligor, and even if there were the above judgment, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend to the non-party 1, the obligor, and thus, the judgment that has affected res judicata is unreasonable.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, although this case was owned by the non-party 2, the non-party 3, who is the plaintiff's father's own land, purchased at around 1926 and registered ownership transfer in his name. The plaintiff cultivated this case's land until August 15, 194 (unregistered) by the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' '' '' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' '' ' ' '' ' '' ' ' ''' ' ' ' ' ''' ' ''' ' ''' ' ' ''' ' ' ''' ' '' and ' 38' '' '' '' ' '' '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' '. '. ' ' ' ' ' ' '. ' ' ' '.

The dissenting argument is groundless.

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4;

Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code provides that the ownership shall lose its effect if the registration of transfer is not made within the prescribed period, and that only the ownership shall not be lost to the obligee due to the cause relationship for which the former owner may file a claim for the registration of transfer to the former owner (the seller). As such, it cannot be admitted that even the claim, which is the above claim, shall lose its effect, even if it is the claim, within the prescribed period under Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code. Since the claim for the registration of transfer is not made within the prescribed period under Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, the ownership shall be lost, but the above claim for the registration of transfer shall not be extinguished as mentioned above, and the period of prescription for the claim for the registration of transfer shall begin on January 1, 196, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of ownership against the above non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of ownership against the said non-party 1, which is clearly groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)