1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed by this court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments as to the conjunctive claim at the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that D has the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against D, and D has the right to claim reimbursement of the amount returned to the Defendant in accordance with the above obligation to return unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim restitution against D on behalf of D with the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment as preserved claim.

Judgment

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation is not acknowledged as to the debtor, the creditor himself becomes the plaintiff and becomes disqualified as a party to exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da8996, Jul. 28, 1992). The subrogation lawsuit is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da8996, Jul. 28, 1992). The judgment should be prior to the determination as to whether the success fee in this case is unreasonably excessive for the purpose of recognizing the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment. As such, the facts acknowledged in the first instance court, as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as follows: ① the plaintiff was paid a total amount of 239,478,240 won (= local tax 216,704,240 won + local tax 274,430 won).