1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant goods from the non-party company for KRW 300 million. The Plaintiff kept the instant goods in custody by the non-party company. The purchase price was appropriated for KRW 300 million for the construction materials that the Plaintiff did not receive from the non-party company, and entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).

Around October 3, 2014, the Defendant carried out the instant goods in the factory of the non-party company.

[Reasons for Recognition] A, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (including each number), and the whole purport of pleading as to preserved claims, the plaintiff alleged in the defendant's assertion was a creditor of Alti Development Co., Ltd., which is not the non-party company, and entered into the sales contract of this case falsely. Even though it is not so, the plaintiff was well aware that the sales contract was concluded between the defendant and the non-party company, and was actively involved in the non-party company's act of breach of trust, such as inducing the non-party company to enter into the sales contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for subrogation by creditor is invalid as it

Judgment

There is no evidence to prove that the sales contract of this case was concluded falsely, or that the plaintiff instigated the non-party company to conclude the sales contract of this case with the knowledge of the conclusion of the sales contract between the defendant and the non-party company, and therefore, the defendant's defense based on

As to the necessity of preservation, the non-party company asserted by the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the defendant and exercised its right by itself, while the plaintiff concluded the sales contract of this case with the knowledge that the article of this case was already sold to the defendant, so the exercise of the subrogation right of this case constitutes unfair interference with the act of free management of property of the non