1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasons why this court should explain in this paragraph are the same as the entry of the “written recognition” in the second and third written judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the modification of the “written evidence No. 5” in the second and sixth written judgment of the court of first instance to “Evidence No. 3,” and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiff asserted in the defendant's lawsuit of this case sought payment of the loan claim of this case against the defendants in subrogation of D as the creditor of this case. However, since D is granted immunity, the plaintiff cannot exercise the creditor's subrogation right any longer, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be allowed.

B. The obligee’s subrogation right is premised on the fact that the obligee is entitled to exercise the obligee’s right as a right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right in order to preserve his/her claim, and the main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “the obligor granted immunity is exempted from all the obligor’s obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedures.” However, there are exceptional provisions that the obligor shall not be exempted from the liability only for certain obligations cited in the proviso. Thus, when the obligor is granted immunity in the bankruptcy procedure, exercising the obligee’s subrogation right with the obligor’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s third party’s right by virtue of the obligee’s own right to exercise the obligee’s right to exercise the obligee’s right by subrogation in the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit, which is unlawful and unreasonable.

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on June 24, 1994