1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the primary claim is that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with C, a seller, and borne the purchase price. Since the ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate was made under the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant pursuant to the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it constitutes a three-party registered title trust. The said title trust agreement is null and void by Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Therefore, the Defendant should implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust agreement with respect to the instant real estate.

On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff stated that in the application for correction of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff will later file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer against C who is a seller. Thus, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is a creditor subrogation lawsuit seeking the Defendant to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the pertinent real estate in subrogation of C in order to preserve the seller’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against C as the buyer of the instant

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit concerning the legality of the primary claim of this case, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged as to the debtor, the creditor becomes the plaintiff himself and becomes the third debtor, and thus, the subrogation lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

As such, we first examine whether the Plaintiff, as the buyer of the instant sales contract, has the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against C as the seller.

In full view of Gap evidence No. 5-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant.