1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 1994, Nonparty B obtained a loan from a national bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, and on the wind that the Plaintiff could not pay its principal and interest properly, Nonparty B subrogated to the national bank totaling KRW 27,009,967 on March 30, 1998.

B. On July 7, 2010, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the 102-dong 102 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Dongcheon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. Meanwhile, B was declared bankrupt by Suwon District Court 2016Hadan2813, and was granted immunity on December 13, 2016 by Suwon District Court 2016Ma2813, and the above immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, according to a title trust agreement between B and the Defendant, B was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate under the Defendant’s name, and that, in order to preserve B’s claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff subrogated to B’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

The creditor's subrogation right is based on the premise that the creditor is entitled to exercise the creditor's right to exercise the debtor's right in order to preserve his/her claim, and the main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "the debtor who is exempted is exempted from the responsibility for all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure." This means that the debtor is still in existence of his/her obligation, but it is not possible to enforce the debtor's performance.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been granted immunity shall lose the capacity to file a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). However, the same shall apply only to certain obligations cited in the proviso.