1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion B entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant who is a fraud, and paid the successful bid price under the Defendant’s name after having offered the bid price to the Defendant, in the auction procedure with respect to the C Apartment-ro 301, 101, 100,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant in excess of his/her obligation, such as the Plaintiff’s liability for reimbursement of KRW 1,181,42,60,00, in excess of his/her obligation.

The Plaintiff, as a creditor of indemnity against B, shall exercise the claim against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 173,737,050 (the amount equivalent to the purchase price provided to the Defendant to his/her husband and wife under the above title trust agreement null and void) that B had against the Defendant by subrogation.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 173,737,050 and damages for delay.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s “necessary to preserve” necessary for subrogation of creditors is not acknowledged because B is not insolvent as of the date of closing argument in the instant case.

If the obligee exercises the obligee's subrogation right by using monetary claims as the preserved right, the necessity of preservation is recognized if there is a risk that his/her claim can not be fully satisfied unless the obligee exercises the obligee's subrogation right.

However, in full view of the results of the fact-finding and the purport of the entire pleadings of the court, it is recognized that B did not have income since 2010, and that it did not own real estate under its name as of the date of the closing of argument in this case. In light of the above financial status of B, the plaintiff could not obtain full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim unless he exercises his right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant in this case.