1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial shall be dismissed; and

3...

1. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment concerning the primary claim is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, in subrogation of B in order to preserve the instant judgment claim against B, the Plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on April 9, 2010 regarding the land indicated in the separate sheet against B as to the Defendant.

B. Determination 1 on this Safety Defenses. 1) The defendant added the conjunctive claim that the plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant in B while seeking the payment of the collection amount to the defendant, and the modification of the lawsuit is inappropriate on the basis of the claim. 2) The plaintiff asserts that there is no need to preserve the creditor's subrogation right because B is not in insolvent. 2) The creditor's subrogation right can be exercised in order to preserve his/her claim only when the debtor does not exercise his/her right against the third debtor. In the case where the creditor's right to the debtor to be preserved by subrogation is a monetary claim against the debtor, the creditor can exercise his/her right against the third debtor on behalf of the debtor, i.e., the debtor's insolvency, only if the debtor is insolvent. This is a litigation requirement, and if the debtor's insolvency is not recognized, the creditor's subrogation is not a party to the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556, Feb. 26, 2009).

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit on the conjunctive claim is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of lawsuit.

B.