A. On April 11, 2008, the Defendant obtained loans of KRW 170 million from the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) on the security of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 3 Dong 903 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) The apartment house of this case was sold at a voluntary auction on August 19, 2013. On the date of distribution on October 1, 2013, our bank received dividends of KRW 195,059,414 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 170 million and KRW 25,059,414) out of the proceeds from the sale, and appropriated it for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan of 2008. (c) C asserted that it acquired the right to indemnity against the Defendant on the ground of the foregoing paragraph, and asserted that it transferred the claim for indemnity against the Defendant to the Plaintiff who is his spouse as of May 20, 2014, the bank received a notice of assignment of claims by content-certified document to the Defendant on August 28, 2014, and received a loan of KRW 2008,700,000 from our bank in 207 to 200,700,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defense prior to the merits does not directly exercise the right of recourse and transferred it to the plaintiff who is the spouse to the plaintiff who is the plaintiff. It constitutes a litigation trust, and thus, constitutes a lawsuit trust, and accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the apartment house of this case, which is the common property of the plaintiff's husband and wife formed during the marriage, was sold by auction, etc., as the reason why the plaintiff acquired the claim for indemnity against the defendant.