1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the fact that C completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on September 2, 2010, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on September 17, 2010 can be recognized that C completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on September 2, 2010.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 2, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion D purchased the instant real estate from C, and concluded a title trust agreement with the Defendant.

This is a three-party title trust, and the title trust agreement and registration are null and void in accordance with Article 4, Section 1, Section 2 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name.

Therefore, the instant real estate is still owned by C, a seller, and the sales contract between D and C still remains valid. As such, D, a title truster, may seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name against the Defendant, the title trustee, by subrogation, in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate based on the said sales contract.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a creditor who purchased the instant real estate from D on March 27, 2014.

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is the creditor of D, seeks that C implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name of real estate of this case by subrogation of D and C in succession.

B. 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 has no standing to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor, and thus the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27188 Decided September 29, 2005). However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether D purchased the instant real estate from C and held title trust to the Defendant, the health unit, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 through 10, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2 are written.