beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 16 each of the 16 real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) is an aggregate building acquired by C on December 16, 2014, and is not yet registered as a site ownership.
B. The Defendant is a person who completed the ownership transfer security registration under Article 1774 of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Southern District Court’s Gangseo-gu District Court’s receipt of January 12, 2015 on the ground of a promise to return substitutes for each of the instant real estate on January 9, 2015.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, a site for each of the above real estate, acquired by voluntary auction on August 28, 2015 the share of 2645/3637, out of the 363m2 in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, which is the site for each of the above real estate, was the one who acquired by the voluntary auction on August 28, 2015. The amount of the Plaintiff’s credit is KRW 70 million as of the date of the closing of argument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 35, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense
A. As to the lawsuit in this case where the plaintiff asserted C by subrogation of the defendant, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because C is not insolvent and it does not meet the requirements for the creditor's subrogation right.
B. (1) In the event that the obligee’s right to the obligor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim in the event that the obligee’s right to the obligor is a monetary claim in subrogation of the obligor, the obligee may exercise the obligee’s right to the third obligor in subrogation of the obligor only when the obligor is insolvent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556, Feb. 26, 2009). The existence of such preservation requires the obligee’s assertion and proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1086, Jul. 13, 1976).