1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 600 million to C and D on May 31, 2005, and C and D invested the loan in the Defendant’s primary business, and thus, C and D have sought the return of the investment amount to D, such as the Plaintiff’s claim, in subrogation of D, which did not pay KRW 300 million out of the loan,.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against D does not exist, and even if the preserved claim is acknowledged, the Plaintiff’s obligee’s exercise of subrogation right is unlawful, since D is not insolvent.

2. In the event that the creditor's right to the debtor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim against the debtor when the creditor making a judgment on the defendant's main defense is subrogated of the debtor, the creditor may exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor on behalf of the debtor only when the debtor is insolvent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556 Decided February 26, 2009). In the instant case where the Plaintiff seeks the payment of the investment amount to be returned by subrogation of D inasmuch as the health account and the preserved claims asserted by the Plaintiff are monetary claims, the Plaintiff must prove D’s insolvency. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the mere fact that D did not repay the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge it, and no other evidence exists.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is not recognized as the necessity of preservation, which is the requirement of creditor subrogation lawsuit.

3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.