손해배상(기)
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding payment in excess of KRW 122,500 shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C is that a loan equivalent to KRW 484,616,686 was extended to D, and the Plaintiff received the said loan claim from C.
On the other hand, D has the damage claim against the defendant due to embezzlement by the defendant, and is currently insolvent.
Therefore, the plaintiff is claiming the defendant to pay damages on behalf of D.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits pertaining to the instant lawsuit trust, Article 7 of the Trust Act applies mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, since the Defendant received a loan claim from C with the focus on the litigation trust. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff received a loan claim as a principal agent in the litigation trust, and rather, in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 39 through 41, C appointed the Plaintiff as a person in charge of accounts, and the Plaintiff appears to have received a loan claim from C in return for the performance of accounting affairs. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense prior to the instant merits is without merit. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s each statement in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 35, and 37 regarding the non-existence of the secured claim is an education program operated by the RPS program separate from D, solely on the basis of each statement in the evidence No. 6.
Rather, in full view of the evidence Nos. 42, 7, and 9 of the evidence Nos. 42, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the RPS program appears to be one of the programs operated in D, and therefore, C cannot be deemed to have lent KRW 361,661,68 to D.
Therefore, it is difficult to see that C had a loan claim in excess of KRW 122,50,000,000, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received a loan claim in excess of KRW 361,661,686, which corresponds to the above excess portion from C. Thus, among the lawsuit in this case, the part exceeding KRW 122,50,000 from the Defendant is the obligee’s subrogation right.