1. The part of a creditor subrogation claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the obligee’s subrogation claim.

Judgment on the Grounds of Claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was entrusted to E (hereinafter “E”) due to personal circumstances while operating the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da and the 1st century franchise store (hereinafter “instant store”).

Then, around July 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the entire goodwill and facilities of the instant store to F, which received E’s introduction, KRW 170 million (hereinafter “the instant goodwill”). In fact, E intended to receive the instant goodwill and facilities instead of the Plaintiff. At the time of E, the Defendant, the representative director, was paid the instant goodwill in cash and checks from F around August 2014 to September 2014.

The defendant did not deposit KRW 138 million out of the premium of this case received as such to E.

Therefore, the plaintiff (1) demanded the plaintiff to pay the above KRW 138 million directly to the defendant, and (2) exercise the above right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 138 million against the defendant by subrogation of E.

(A) In the first instance court, the Plaintiff did not explicitly state that the Plaintiff filed a claim on behalf of the Defendant in subrogation of E, but at the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should have deposited the instant premium in the bank account in E, and submitted evidentiary materials as well as the assertion on the insolvency of E. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff claimed the obligee’s right of subrogation as above in the first instance court’s direct payment claim and selective exercise of the obligee’s right of subrogation. The Plaintiff stated in the first instance court that the obligee exercised the obligee’s right of subrogation.)

Judgment

(1) We examine the direct claim, and even if the plaintiff's assertion itself, the other party in a contractual relationship such as the entrusted operation of the store of this case and the delegation of the receipt of the premium of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is E, and the defendant is not in a direct contractual relationship with the defendant, so only 138 million won out of the premium of this case to the defendant.