1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's action of subrogation as added in the trial shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff’s subrogation claim added in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is presented by

2. Additional determination

A. A. Around February 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a partnership agreement with the representative D of the Plaintiff Company B and the head office of the Byung branch (dong branch) of the said Company to take over the shares of 50%, and to settle the net income according to their respective shares; (b) accordingly, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 52,832,211 to the Plaintiff Company as the net income of KRW 105,664,42 (the head office of the sick branch) in the year 2014 when the Plaintiff changed his/her business registration from a corporate entity to a personal business entity after changing his/her business registration from a corporate entity to a personal business entity; and (c) managing the frequency of the business; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 52,832,211 in the settlement amount to B.

However, the Plaintiff supplied livestock products to B from August 30, 2013 to April 21, 2014, and lent money to B from June 18, 2014 to August 25, 2014, thereby holding 61,404,241 won bonds (amount receivable KRW 46,713,804, loans KRW 14,690,437) against B against the Defendant. To preserve this, the Plaintiff is acting in subrogation of the claim for settlement amount against the Defendant by B.

B. Where the right of a creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged in a creditor subrogation lawsuit, the creditor becomes the plaintiff and has no standing to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor. Thus, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14399 delivered on June 24, 1994, etc.). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had a claim for the price of goods against the stock company B as alleged above, and as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had a claim for the price of goods against the stock company B.