1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2015, D set the interest rate of KRW 42 million to Defendant B as 2% per month, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed for Defendant B.

At the time, the plaintiff introduced D to Defendant B.

B. On September 24, 2015, Defendant C, in the presence of Defendant B, prepared a land sales contract stating that the purchase price of KRW 400 million was KRW 520,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and the said loan was used as the down payment under the said sales contract.

C. D’s provisional attachment of Defendant B’s apartment on December 14, 2015, and filed a lawsuit seeking the repayment of the loan, and obtained a favorable judgment, and subsequently received a decision to commence compulsory auction on February 22, 2017.

On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 48 million to D account, issued seven copies of the face value check at KRW 1 million, and repaid the principal and interest of the Defendants and the costs of requesting auction to D.

D) On the date of repayment, D has made a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff shall return the tea card, etc. to the Plaintiff, withdraw the application for provisional seizure and the commencement of compulsory auction, and shall not impose any liability on the Plaintiff any longer.”

E. D withdrawn or released an application for commencement of economic auction and an application for provisional attachment on February 27, 2017, and thereby revoked the registration of commencement of economic auction and the registration of provisional attachment on the apartment owned by Defendant B.

【Ground Nos. 1 through 7】

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking reimbursement of the subrogated payment in respect of the discharge of the Defendants’ obligations against D.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff did not have a legitimate interest to repay to D on behalf of the Defendants, which constitutes a voluntary subrogation under Article 480 of the Civil Act, and on the other hand, the fact that the Plaintiff obtained D’s consent is as seen earlier.

However, since the provision of Article 450(1) of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to voluntary subrogation, the plaintiff intends to claim voluntary subrogation against the defendants who are the debtor.