The judgment below

The part concerning the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1 as to the primary claim

A. The lower court, citing the first instance judgment, determined as follows.

1) The provisional registration of this case is the invalid registration that E has completed by forging a pre-sale contract in the name of the defendant and C. Since the defendant has agreed to use the provisional registration of this case which is null and void for preserving the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the above sales contract with C while purchasing shares of this case from C, and completed the principal registration of this case based on the provisional registration of this case, it may assert the validity of the provisional registration of this case as to C, which is the other party to the above provisional registration, by the agreement for utilization of the provisional registration of this case. Meanwhile, since the right of subrogation is exercised against the third party debtor, the third party debtor may oppose the creditor with all defenses against the debtor, but the creditor can only assert it within the scope of the grounds that the debtor may assert, and cannot assert any independent circumstance between himself and the third party debtor.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff had an interest in the register after completing the registration of entering the decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant shares before there was an agreement to divert the above provisional registration, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff by an agreement to divert the above provisional registration. However, as the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the provisional registration and the principal registration in subrogation of C, the Plaintiff cannot assert the above reasons that the Plaintiff himself had against the Defendant.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of an agreement on the utilization of registration and the grounds for obligee’s subrogation lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 as to the primary claim, the lower court.