(e).

A. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the claim, sought confirmation that the Defendant’s right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the statute of limitation against K as the preserved right by subrogation of Kri, and that the Defendant’s right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the statute of limitation is K.

B. The obligee’s subrogation right of the relevant legal doctrine is entitled to exercise the obligee’s right to preserve his/her own claim only in cases where the obligor does not exercise the obligee’s right to the third obligor, and when the obligee has already exercised the obligee’s right at the time of exercising the subrogation right of the obligee, the obligee cannot exercise the obligee’s right to subrogation of the obligor, even

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da30016 delivered on November 10, 1992). C.

Judgment

In light of the facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, K may acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm the right to claim the payment of deposit money of this case, which is the cause of the plaintiff's right to claim the payment of deposit money of this case claimed as the subrogated claim ( Daegu District Court 2016Da133611), and that he was sentenced to dismissal judgment on September 22, 2017. Accordingly, since the plaintiff had already exercised the right of subrogation at the time when he had already exercised the right of subrogation by the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's subrogation lawsuit of this case, which is the debtor, is unlawful.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which was changed in exchange at this court, is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.