I might have misunderstood something(most likely the case), but there's an example. Assume this matrix:
$\begin{bmatrix} 1& 2&3 \\ 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 2 &3 \end{bmatrix}$
Now, the reduced form is:
$\begin{bmatrix} 1& 2&3 \\ 0& -1& -1\\ 0& 0 &0 \end{bmatrix}$
Which give:
$\begin{bmatrix} 1& 2&3 \\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0 &0 \end{bmatrix}$
Now, the three vectors of the matrix can't form a base in R^3, but because the rank of the matrix is 2, I can choose two independant vectors that will form a base for R^2. And this is where I loose comprehension. Let's say I take these two vectors that are independant:
$\begin{matrix} 1\\ 1\\ 1 \end{matrix}$
and
$\begin{matrix} 2\\ 1\\ 2 \end{matrix}$
These two supposedly form a base in R^2. What bothers me is how come there are three elements in the vectors that form a base of R^2, which as a general rule, has two elements in the vectors of its base? What does the third element tell us? Am I supposed to ignore it?
As answered in a comment above, your vectors do not belong to $R^2$.
However, what is meant is that for $span\{(1,1,1),(2,1,2)\} = K \subset R^3$ it holds that $K \simeq R^2$.
This can be seen by $L : K \to R^2 $;
$L((u_{1},u_{2},u_{3})) = (u_{1},u_{2})$
As this was defined on a basis of $K$, this linear transformation is well defined.
It is clearly onto $R^2$ since the image vectors are linearly independent, and letting $L(v) = 0_{R^2}$ we get that $(0,0,\gamma) = a(1,1,1) +b(2,1,2)$ and a simple calculcation shows that $a,b$ must be zero, showing the kernel is empty and $L$ to be injective and thus an isomorphism.