1. The plaintiff's action of subrogation against the defendant C is dismissed.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff sold medical equipment equivalent to KRW 88 million, such as X-Porte Kisk U Gundo (hereinafter “instant medical equipment”).

B. The primary Defendant sold the instant medical equipment to Preliminary Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Preliminary Defendant”), and the primary Defendant again sold it to D Medical Center. The Plaintiff, upon the primary Defendant’s instruction, delivered the instant medical equipment to D Medical Center, and drafted a letter of commitment to supply goods and technical assistance for free warranty and maintenance of the ancillary Defendant and the instant medical equipment for 60 months on March 24, 2017.

C. On April 30, 2018, the conjunctive Defendant remitted total of KRW 72 million to the primary Defendant’s account. On the same day, the primary Defendant drafted a certificate of debt repayment with the effect that “The primary Defendant would not raise any objection against any obligation after having repaid the full purchase amount.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the primary defendant

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the primary defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 88 million, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from September 29, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

(b) Judgment by based service by publication (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination on the claim against the conjunctive defendant

A. In the event that a claim for the price of goods is not accepted against the primary defendant, the plaintiff claims the price of goods directly against the primary defendant. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the primary defendant is justified.