Whether it constitutes a double lawsuit against subrogation

If the Defendant’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiffs regarding the execution of the registration procedure of ownership transfer, which is identical with the purport and cause of the claim of the Plaintiffs, and the contents of the lawsuit, and continues to exist at present, the above lawsuit and the lawsuit of the Plaintiffs, even though they are different from the lawsuit, are the same as the lawsuit in substance, and thus, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as it goes against Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da351 delivered on January 29, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10643Da10643 delivered on June 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 22 ① citizen25 delivered on June 20, 200, Decision 234(12)935 delivered on July 20, 200, Court Gazette 4

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Bank of Korea

Korea Industrial Complex Corporation

Busan District Court Musan Branch Court (74Gahap51)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs on July 19, 1972.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition to the fact that the original judgment is revoked, it is the same as the statement in the purport of the claim.

As to the requirements of the lawsuit, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4 with no dispute over the establishment of the lawsuit, it is recognized that the supplementary intervenor Korea Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., by subrogation of the plaintiffs on June 19, 1973, filed a lawsuit against the defendant on the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the real estate stated in the separate sheet with the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant on the ground of the defendant on July 19, 1972 and the reason for the claim, as a result of the lawsuit filed with the Busan District Court Musan branch, the lawsuit was rendered to the defendant on Oct. 26, 1973 on the ground of the above support No. 73Na121, which was delivered on Oct. 26, 1973 and currently on the part

Thus, even if the above lawsuit and the plaintiffs' principal lawsuit are different from those of the above lawsuit subrogated by the creditor subrogation right stipulated in Article 404 (1) of the Civil Code, the plaintiff's subsequent lawsuit cannot be deemed to go against the prohibition of the so-called double lawsuit under Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff's subsequent lawsuit cannot be dismissed since it is illegal that it did not meet the requirements of the lawsuit and its defects cannot be corrected.

Therefore, the original judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' principal lawsuit is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this is without merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 384, 95, 93, and 89.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)