1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Ilsung Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masung Shipbuilding”) repaired the vessel owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid the repair cost to the Ilsung Shipbuilding on behalf of the Defendant upon request of the Plaintiff, Russia A, who is a customer.

Since the defendant is obligated to pay repair expenses to the Ilsung Shipbuilding for the management expenses according to the repair contract entered into with Ilsung Shipbuilding or for the management of affairs, the plaintiff is entitled to seek reimbursement equivalent to the repair expenses from the subrogation against the defendant.

2. The person who has discharged the obligation of another person, if the obligee gives his consent, may demand performance of the obligation in subrogation of the obligee pursuant to Article 480 of the Civil Act, and if there is a legitimate interest in the performance, pursuant to Article 481 of the

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Ilsung Shipbuilding consented to the plaintiff's subrogation, so subrogation under Article 480 of the Civil Code cannot be recognized.

“Justifiable benefit to be paid” under Article 481 of the Civil Act refers to a person who has a legal interest to be protected by subrogation by performing performance, as he/she is in a position to have a creditor receive execution or lose his/her own right against a debtor without making performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma109, May 28, 2009). A person having a de facto interest is excluded from a person who has a de facto interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma109, May 28, 2009). The Plaintiff merely claims that payment of repair

Therefore, subrogation by the person who performs the obligation under Article 481 of the Civil Code can not be recognized.

Unless the plaintiff's subrogation right is recognized, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, without examining the existence of a claim against the defendant of the Ilsung Shipbuilding.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.