(a) Whether the judgment omitting the legal representative’s indication is unlawful;

B. Whether a judgment ordering a creditor who exercises a creditor's subrogation right to implement a procedure for registration of cancellation is unlawful

A. The omission of legal representation in the indication of a party to the judgment is merely a clerical error and thus does not constitute an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In exercising a creditor's subrogation right, the effect of the loan is attributable to the debtor even though the creditor requests the third debtor to provide a direct benefit. Thus, even if the creditor exercised the creditor's subrogation right and won the procedure to cancel the ownership transfer registration directly to the third debtor, it cannot be said that there is an error of law in the judgment ordering the creditor who exercises the creditor's subrogation right to do a direct cancellation registration procedure.

A. Article 193(1)1(b) of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 66Da254,255 delivered on April 6, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 66Da417 delivered on June 21, 1966 (No. 14Du70)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 15 others, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 92Na5856 delivered on November 3, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal and supplementary grounds of appeal and supplemental appellate brief are also examined as supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief not timely filed.

1. On the first ground for appeal

As seen in the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case for 20 years by integrating the evidence presented in the judgment, and therefore, barring any special circumstances, the plaintiff, the possessor, is presumed to have occupied the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance manner, and as shown in the records, the defendant did not assert or prove any facts to reverse such presumption, and the court below did not explain that the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance with the intent of the plaintiff as stated in the ground of appeal is presumed to have been possessed. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the grounds of appeal, inconsistent with the reasons,

2. On the second ground for appeal

In full view of the evidence cited in the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff had occupied the real estate of this case without recognizing the purchase thereof, and it cannot be said that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the reasoning by judging the evidence inconsistent with the rules of experience or logic. The grounds for appeal

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, since the deceased non-party 1 died after the action of this case, the legal representative of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who is a minor, shall be the legal representative of the minor, and it is clear that he/she has duly appointed his/her legal representative. Thus, omitting the legal representative indication in the indication of the party in the judgment of the court below is merely a clerical error, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is without merit.

5. On the fourth ground for appeal

In exercising a creditor's subrogation right, the creditor does not superior to the third party obligor's demand for direct payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4292Da838, Jun. 30, 1960). Since the difference between the creditor's demand for direct payment and the creditor's demand for direct payment is vested in the debtor, even if the creditor exercised the creditor's subrogation right and won the third party obligor's direct performance of the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration, even if the creditor claimed for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and won the third party obligor's direct performance of the procedure, the registration based on the cancellation registration must return to the debtor's name. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the law because it ordered the plaintiff, the creditor who exercises the creditor's subrogation right, to perform the procedure for direct cancellation registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da254, Apr. 6, 196; Supreme Court Decision 66Da417, Jun. 21, 1966).

5. On the fifth and sixth grounds

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below recognized that the plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case for 20 years by integrating the evidence presented in the judgment, and judged that the defendant did not recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the prescription of the register by denying the possession of the defendant, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence by judging evidence contrary to the rules of experience and logic in the process. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)