1. When one of the obligors has jointly discharged from liability at his own expense, he may exercise the obligee’s claim and the right to collateral in subrogation of the obligee, as a matter of course, by subrogation of the obligee, pursuant to Article 481 and Article 482(1) of the Civil Act, at the same time as the obligee’s claim for reimbursement against the portion of the obligation to be borne by the other obligors, pursuant to Article 425(1) of the Civil Act. The above right to reimbursement and the right to subrogation are different from the contents of the original, the due date, the interest

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da1556, May 30, 1997). In cases where rehabilitation procedures commence for a debtor, the debtor is exempted from liability for the right to indemnity pursuant to the main sentence of Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) because the rehabilitation creditor fails to report his/her right to indemnity as a rehabilitation claim when the rehabilitation procedures commence

Even if a rehabilitation creditor is unable to enforce the performance of the debtor, it is reasonable to view that the right to indemnity exists as it is. Therefore, it does not affect the rehabilitation creditor's exercise of the creditor's claim and the right to collateral by subrogation of the creditor by means of subrogation of the creditor pursuant to Articles 481 and 482 (1) of the Civil Act.

I would like to say.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the Defendant’s Intervenor based on the performance of the obligation to repair defects was not reported as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and thus lost its ability, and in such a case, it cannot be deemed that the requirements for subrogation by the person who performed the obligation are not satisfied in order to secure the right to indemnity that is not feasible

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.