1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the allegations by the parties and the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land that G donated to H without any title.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant C is not effective.

In addition, the judgment on the merits of a lawsuit brought against the deceased person as the defendant is unlawful and unreasonable and the judgment on the merits does not affect his/her heir as an invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da94312, Feb. 27, 2014). Therefore, the judgment against the deceased person G as the defendant who had already died as the defendant is null and void as a matter of course, and each of the above registrations of ownership transfer are null and void.

Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim for ownership transfer registration against H H G and its inheritors, the plaintiff inherited by subrogation in proportion to the share of 1/14 (1/4 of V x 2/7 of the plaintiff's share of inheritance) is attributed to the debtor, even if the creditor requests a third-party obligor to directly pay for the above right to claim for transfer registration of ownership in subrogation of G's heir in order to preserve the above right to claim for transfer registration of ownership, so even if the creditor won the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration directly to the third-party obligor, even if the creditor exercised the right to claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, it cannot be said that there is an error of law in the judgment ordering the creditor who exercises the right of subrogation to directly perform the procedure for cancellation registration in his name.

Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on April 14, 1995