2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasons for this Court are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the right to indemnity added to this Court is consistent with the reasons for the first instance judgment; and (b) such assertion is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. 7,8th below the 8th decision of the court of first instance, "the defendant recognized that F was sold in advance to commercial buildings at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, and set the fee as KRW 400 million," as follows.

“The Defendant recognized the validity of the pre-sale of the instant agreement by F at the time of its preparation, and paid the F the sales commission of KRW 400 million to F. As such, F has a claim for the sales commission of KRW 400 million against the Defendant. In addition, D at the time transferred KRW 540 million out of the total remaining bonds against the Defendant of KRW 540 million to the Defendant, instead of transferring the amount of KRW 400 million out of the total outstanding bonds of KRW 540 million to the Defendant to the Defendant having a substantial interest with F, the said claim for

(b) the following shall be added to the third place below the 13th decision of the first instance.

(12) According to the “written statement of payment of transferred bonds” (6 pages No. 1 of the evidence No. 1) prepared by the president of the defendant cooperative at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement with J and D on November 15, 2012, the Defendant promised to pay the entire amount of claims that the J acquired from D and the sales commission claims that D acquired from D at the same time, while the Defendant promised to pay the entire amount of claims that the J acquired from D and the sales commission claims that D acquired from D as agent fees for the entire amount of claims that the J acquired.

On the other hand, with regard to D’s claim for the transfer of the sales commission, “the completion of the sales agency completion within the limit of KRW 400 million”, which appears to have been intended to indicate that D’s claim for the transfer of the sales commission is limited to D’s claim.”

3. Judgment on the assertion of the right to indemnity

A. The plaintiff's ground of claim

On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff added the cause of the claim to this court as the case may be, while offering an application for the change of the cause of the claim.1)

1) In preparing the instant agreement, the Defendant and F agreed to resolve the legal relationship relating to the instant parcelling-out agency contract and to pay KRW 400 million to F with the settlement amount.

2) In addition, D transferred to J the part of the remaining total amount of KRW 540 million against the Defendant, which is substantially interested with F, with the same interest as F, thereby making D subrogated payment of the Defendant’s obligations to F. Accordingly, D acquired the right of reimbursement of KRW 400 million against the Defendant.

3) The instant agreement provides that “If the Defendant returns the invested principal to G, H and I as a method of the Defendant’s performance of the foregoing indemnity obligation, the Defendant shall receive the sales commission to be returned to the F and pay it to D within the scope of KRW 400 million, and it does not intend to reduce the actual return of D’s claim for reimbursement to the extent of the sales commission.

(b) Markets:

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings, D in this case

At the time of agreement, it is only possible to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the entire amount of the claim to J at the time of agreement and instead acquired the claim from F. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the entire amount of the claim to J with the intent of subrogation for the claim for the sale fee, or that there was no other evidence to recognize it as a subrogation payment for the claim for the sale fee.Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Even if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s subrogation was paid by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff can only exercise F’s claim against F to the extent of reimbursement. This is not different from that of the Plaintiff’s previous claim that D received F’s claim for the sales commission under the agreement of this case. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s previous claim is groundless. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that was newly added by this court is groundless.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Choi Jong-chul

Judges Song Ho-ho