1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Defendant C’s 456 square meters prior to Ischeon-si D.

1. Basic facts

A. Each land of this case was originally owned by F. Of them, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 30, 199 with respect to the land No. 1 of this case on December 19, 200, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 19, 200, and again, on December 16, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in Defendant C’s future.

On the other hand, as to the land No. 2 of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 2, 2000 in Defendant B, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 16, 2009 in Defendant C, and reached the present time.

B. The registration of transfer of ownership under Defendant B’s name as to the land No. 1 of this case was completed according to the title trust agreement with the Plaintiff.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the result of the personal examination of Defendant B, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the land No. 2 of this case is legitimate, and that the Plaintiff purchased the land No. 2 from F and held the title trust with Defendant B, and that the ownership transfer registration between the Defendants is null and void. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration to Defendant C by subrogation of F in order to preserve

First, we examine the existence of the right of claim for ownership transfer registration against F claimed by the plaintiff as a ground for the exercise of subrogation right.

In order for the Plaintiff to have the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership of the land No. 2 in F, the Plaintiff directly purchased the land No. 2 in his name or under the name of Defendant B, but only the registration was made in the name of Defendant B. However, it is difficult to recognize it solely with the result of the personal examination conducted against Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, at the time of purchasing the land No. 2, Defendant B became the purchaser under the sales contract.