beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the Republic of Korea added by this court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the court added the evidence Nos. 9 and 10 to the evidence of insufficient conduct No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and all except where the court added the judgment as to the claim added by this court as follows, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on additional claims
A. 1) On the premise that Defendant B had the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer on January 1, 2005 with respect to the land in this case, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary claim against Defendant B for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer registration under Defendant B’s name as to the above (a) and (b) in the Republic of Korea, on the premise that the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription of acquisition on January 1, 2005, under the premise that the Plaintiff had the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription of acquisition on January 1, 2005.
2) If the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor’s subrogation lawsuit is not acknowledged, the obligee’s right to the obligee becomes the Plaintiff on his own and becomes the party entitled to exercise the obligor’s right to the third obligor’s third obligor, and the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da46475, Feb. 13, 2004; 2005Da27188, Sept. 29, 2005). In light of such legal principles, as seen earlier, the obligee’s right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession on the Defendant B, and thus, the Defendant’s claim against the Republic of Korea with the preserved claim is unlawful.
3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim that was added by this court against the Defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful, this part of the lawsuit must be dismissed.
B. The primary and selective claims against Defendant B and the preliminary claims No. 1.