The judgment below

Among them, "the defendant" is about 10/15 of the 1,772 square meters of 1,772 square meters before Kim Jong-si to Co-Defendant H in the first instance trial.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined as to the remainder of the grounds of appeal on the remaining grounds of appeal other than the grounds of appeal No. 2. 2, based on its stated reasoning, that the first instance court’s co-defendant H (hereinafter “H”) purchased the land of 1,772 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Kim Jong-si, including the network A, four persons (hereinafter “the network A, etc.”) including the network A, and the transfer registration of ownership completed in the name of the network N is based on a three-party title trust agreement between the network N, and is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant who inherited the network N is also null and void. In so determining, the Plaintiffs, the heir of the network A, can seek the Defendant to implement each procedure for the cancellation of the above invalid transfer registration by subrogationing H in order to preserve

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding three parties’ title trust agreements and requirements for exercise of subrogation right by subrogation, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment,

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal concerning the scope of exercise of subrogation right by subrogation (ground of appeal No. 5)

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The deceased, etc. purchased the instant land from H around October 1981 (hereinafter “instant trade”).

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff, the heir (litigant) of the deceased Party A, at the first instance trial, claimed that the deceased Party A has the share of 10/15 of the purchase price of the instant land, and that the deceased Party A has the share of 10/15 among the purchase price of the instant land.