A. Whether such subrogation lawsuit is appropriate in a case where a claim to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized in a creditor subrogation lawsuit (negative)

(b) In the case of paragraph (a) above, when the first instance court rejected the claim without rejecting the lawsuit, a measure at the appellate court.

A. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized as to the debtor, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and becomes the third debtor, and thus, he/she becomes disqualified as the plaintiff to exercise his/her right to the third debtor, and such subrogation lawsuit shall be dismissed as unlawful.

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, when the first instance court rejected the claim without dismissing the lawsuit, the appellate court’s revocation of the first instance court’s judgment, and it does not require that the case be remanded to the first instance court.

A. Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 226 of the said Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2753 decided Jun. 14, 1988 (Gong1988, 1027) (Gong1988, 1027) 88Meu4727 decided Dec. 11, 1990 (Gong191, 447)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Republic of Korea and one other

Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the intervenor joining the reorganization company

Chuncheon District Court Decision 90Na2998 delivered on March 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the part on Defendant Republic of Korea

1. According to the statement in the fourth oral argument of the court below, the plaintiff's attorney at the court below stated the application for change of the purport of appeal and the cause of claim except for the part on which the land in this case is to be confirmed as the ownership of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (8/60 of each co-owned share) in the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea. However, even so, the court of first instance dismissed all the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea. Since the court below dismissed the lawsuit in this case against the defendant's Republic of Korea, it cannot

2. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation against the debtor is not acknowledged, since the creditor becomes the plaintiff himself and becomes the plaintiff to exercise the right against the third debtor, the subrogation lawsuit cannot be dismissed in an unlawful manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2753, Jun. 14, 198). In such a case, where the first instance court dismissed the claim without dismissing the lawsuit, the appellate court's revocation of the first instance judgment and the judgment dismissing the lawsuit by itself is not required to remand the case to the first instance court.

3. The court below rejected the lawsuit in this case against the defendant's Republic of Korea, which the plaintiff was subrogated by the non-party 3 and the defendant 2 in successive subrogation, on the ground that the non-party 3 did not recognize that the non-party 3 purchased the land in this case from the defendant 2 and thus the right to be compensated by subrogation is not recognized, and the court below's disposition is just, and the non-party 3 did not recognize that the non-party 3 purchased the land from the defendant

As to the claim against the defendant 2

1. According to the records, the court below's finding that Nonparty 3 purchased the land of this case from Defendant 2 is acceptable, and the court below's finding of evidence or fact cannot be deemed as violating the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law such as the reasoning of the lawsuit or the incomplete hearing, and it cannot be said that the fact-finding of this case should be different because there is the evidence of the lawsuit, and there is no omission of judgment as to the evidence that affected the judgment of the court below.

2. In addition, according to Defendant 2’s written application for participation in the reorganization of the Intervenor, the Intervenor’s indication is Nonparty 4, a reorganization company, and is changed to the Korea Land Development Corporation. Thus, the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor is clear that he/she is the administrator Nonparty 4, and the lower court’s first instance court or the lower court is not the above reorganization company, but the administrator Nonparty 4, the administrator of the reorganization company is not the supplementary intervenor. Therefore, there is no reason to challenge the contrary.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)