1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that C has a loan claim of KRW 450,000,000 against C, and C has a claim of KRW 450,000 against the defendant, and C seeks payment of KRW 450,000,000 against C by subrogation as the creditor of C.

2. Where the creditor's right to the debtor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim in the event that the creditor's right to the debtor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, the creditor may exercise the debtor's right to the third debtor on behalf of the debtor, only when the debtor is insolvent;

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556 Decided February 26, 2009). As long as the preserved claim asserted by the Plaintiff is a loan claim and monetary claim, there is a need to preserve only when C is insolvent if the obligor is insolvent. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that C’s small property exceeds the active property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) In light of the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 18 and Eul evidence Nos. 13 through 16, the active property of Eul is more than 5.3 billion won, while the passive property is much less than 5.3 billion won, it can only be acknowledged that the creditor subrogation lawsuit of this case is far less than that of the plaintiff). Ultimately, the creditor subrogation lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no need to further examine whether the plaintiff has a claim against Eul and whether C has a claim against the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.