(a) In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the claim to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized, whether the relevant subrogation lawsuit is appropriate;

B. Whether dismissal without dismissal of an illegal lawsuit constitutes a ground for reversal

A. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not recognized, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and becomes disqualified as the plaintiff who has exercised the right to the third debtor, and thus the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

B. If the right to be preserved, which is the requirement for the exercise of creditor's subrogation right, is not recognized as a fact of title trust, the court below should have dismissed the lawsuit on this part. However, even though the facts of title trust cannot be recognized, dismissal of this part of the plaintiffs' claims is erroneous. However, even in such a case, since the res judicata as to the merits of the claim does not occur, it is not a special reversal for the expression of

A. Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit] Articles 202 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da1008 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1911) 91Da13243 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2424) 92Da896 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 259) B. Supreme Court Order 81Ma292 delivered on August 21, 1981 (Gong1981, 14292) 92Da1046 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong192, 3108) 91Da29026 delivered on November 24, 1992

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na16426 delivered on October 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

(1) We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the deceased non-party 1 trusted the land before the division of this case to the deceased non-party 2, his father, and further, in light of the circumstance in which the plaintiffs held the registration certificate of the land before the division of this case, as stated in its reasoning, it is difficult to view the above deceased non-party 1 as a title trust with the deceased non-party 2, and rejected the plaintiff's above assertion. In light of the records, the court below's measures are acceptable and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, as otherwise alleged. The argument is without merit.

(2) We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief was submitted after the expiration of the submission period, to the extent that it supplements the above grounds of appeal).

In light of the records, the court below recognized that the defendant arbitrarily forged the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of the personal seal impression, etc. issued by the deceased non-party 1 to the above network non-party 1, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the deceased non-party 1's shares (6/16 shares) in the land before the division of this case, and rejected the defendant's ratification and the defense for the acquisition by prescription of the register, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles of ratification or ratification and the acquisition by prescription of the register. All arguments are without merit.

(3) If the obligee’s right to the obligee to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged in a creditor’s subrogation lawsuit, the obligee becomes disqualified as the Plaintiff by himself and the obligor’s third obligor’s right to the third obligor. Therefore, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da8996, Jul. 28, 192). The lower court, on the premise of the title trust between the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2, based on the premise that the Plaintiffs, who are co-inheritors 1, are the title trust between the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2, some of the deceased Nonparty 2’s co-inheritors, and thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s dismissal of the claim based on the title trust termination as to the land in this case, by subrogation of the above Nonparty 97, which is a part of the deceased Nonparty 1’s right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the above title trust termination, and thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s dismissal of the obligee’s right to claim 97.

(4) Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)