1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Plaintiff A, B, and D possess each claim of KRW 107,400,000 against the F Area Housing Association (hereinafter “instant Union”) according to the F Area Housing Association’s decision on March 16, 2018, which became final and conclusive in the lawsuit of Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap20412 and other (money) claim (hereinafter “instant Union”) and the Plaintiff C holds the claim of KRW 50,200,000.

B. On May 19, 201, the instant association entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 490 million with respect to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim stated in the Defendant’s ownership.

C. The Plaintiffs, the creditors of the instant association, seek implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the sales contract dated May 19, 201, in subrogation of the instant association, which did not exercise their rights against the Defendant.

2. In a case where the judgment obligee’s right against the obligor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim, when there is a need to preserve the obligee’s right in subrogation of the obligor, that is, when the obligor is insolvent and it is necessary to prevent reduction of the general property. The existence of such requirements must be asserted and proved by the obligee, and where it is not deemed necessary to preserve the same, the lawsuit is unlawful and thus, the court must dismiss it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da1086 Decided July 13, 1976, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da39918 Decided August 30, 2012, etc.). As long as a preserved claim against the instant association claimed by the Plaintiffs is a monetary claim, in order to exercise the subrogation right against the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the instant association should be insolvent at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, and there is no evidence to prove that the instant association is insolvent.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the necessity of preservation among the litigation requirements.

3. The instant lawsuit is dismissed.