1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought monetary payment from the Defendant as the obligee’s subrogation and the obligee’s subrogation, and as a preliminary obligee’s subrogation, the Plaintiff sought the declaration of intent of the assignment of claim by subrogation. However, the portion of the obligee’s subrogation among the primary claims was cited, and the remainder was entirely dismissed.

In this regard, the plaintiff only filed an appeal against the subrogation portion among the creditors, and the court withdraws the assignment of claim by subrogation of creditor. Thus, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the portion on which the creditor seeks monetary payment by subrogation.

2. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2007, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) concluded a guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) to guarantee the obligation to pay the deposit for restoration expenses to be borne by D as a result of obtaining permission to collect earth and rocks in mountainous district from the Si of Gun, with the insured’s “Sisan”, “1,686,240,000 won”, “the insurance period”, “from April 25, 2007 to May 31, 2012”, and “the guarantee insurance contract of restoration expenses following the collection of earth and rocks in mountainous district” (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”).

B. The Plaintiff provided, to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the registered deposit in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant fixed deposit”) in the face value of KRW 377,059,034, which is issued by one Bank, for the occurrence of the instant insurance accident or the exercise of the right to advance reimbursement under the instant guarantee insurance contract.

C. After that, on December 1, 2011, Gunsan filed a claim for the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground of vicarious recovery due to a failure to perform D’s restoration obligation with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid KRW 1,686,240,000 on April 17, 2013.

On the other hand, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., on March 23, 2012, is insured against under the instant guarantee insurance contract to the Plaintiff.