Dongyang Social Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Maw, Attorneys Jeon Soo-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jin-kin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

June 11, 2009

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 Co., Ltd.: 243,09,278 won and 193,982,171 won among them; 19% per annum from February 10, 2009 to April 13, 2009; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. Defendant 2 (Non-party to the Judgment of the Supreme Court) is jointly and severally with Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. to the extent of KRW 260,000,000,000. The amount stated in the foregoing paragraph

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 shall be borne by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Paragraph 1 of the order and the defendant 3 shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on March 6, 2009 with respect to the portion of 1/6 out of the real estate listed in the attached list to the defendant 2.

1. Claim against Defendant 1 Company and Defendant 2

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

(1) On January 21, 2005, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) borrowed KRW 200,000,000 per annum from the Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) at the time of repayment set forth the interest rate of KRW 19% per annum and six months from the date of repayment, and Defendant 2 jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s loan obligations at the time of the above loan amounting to KRW 260,00,000.

(2) On October 29, 2008, the non-party bank transferred all of the above loan claims and incidental rights to the defendant company to the plaintiff, and notified the defendant company of the assignment of claims on February 6, 2009.

(3) As of February 9, 2009, the balance of the principal of the above loan is KRW 193,982,171, overdue interest before the transfer of the above loan is KRW 41,554,807, and overdue interest from the above transfer of the loan until February 9, 2009 after the above transfer of the loan is KRW 7,472,30.

B. Determination

(1) As a principal debtor, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, 243,09,278 won (=193,982,171 won + 41,54,807 won + 7,472,300 won) and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum 19% per annum from February 10, 2009 to April 13, 2009, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

(2) Defendant 2, as a joint and several surety, has an obligation to pay to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, the amount stated in paragraph (1) above, within the limit of KRW 260,000,00,000.

2. Claim against the defendant 3

(a) Grounds for claims;

(1) Defendant 2’s mother Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) bequeathed the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant 3, the deceased’s grandchildren.

(2) Defendant 2’s legal portion of inheritance against the deceased is 1/3, and Defendant 2 did not have any inherited property or special profit from the deceased, and thus, Defendant 3 has the right to claim a forced portion of inheritance against the deceased 1/6 of the instant real property.

(3) Since Defendant 2 is insolvent, in order to preserve the above loan claims against Defendant 2, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer on March 6, 2009 with respect to the portion of 1/6 of the instant real estate on behalf of Defendant 3 in subrogation of Defendant 2 in order to compensate for the above loan claims against Defendant 2.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the whole pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 1:

(1) The Deceased died on February 17, 2008, and there are Defendants 2, 2, 2, and 3, the deceased’s inheritor.

(2) The Deceased bequeathed the instant real estate to Defendant 3, and on March 13, 2008, the Suwon District Court Seosung registry office was issued as of February 17, 2008, with respect to the instant real estate, and the ownership transfer registration was made in Defendant 3 on the ground of legacy on February 17, 2008.

(3) Defendant 2 did not receive inherited property or special profit from the Deceased.

C. Determination

(1) The obligee’s subrogation right is the right of the obligee to exercise the obligor’s right on behalf of the obligor in order to preserve his/her own claim. Thus, the obligee’s right of subrogation cannot be the object of subrogation in the exercise of the right of subrogation.

(2) The legal reserve of inheritance system is a system that adjusts the interests of the heirs who are entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance on the premise of the freedom of disposal of the decedent's property. The person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance can decide whether to exercise the right to claim the legal reserve of inheritance in consideration of various circumstances, such as respect of the decedent's will, personal and personal relations with other co-inheritors who are the other party to the claim of return, and tangible and intangible profits received from the decedent even if not included in the calculation of the legal reserve of inheritance. Therefore, whether to exercise the right to claim the legal reserve of inheritance of the deceased is entrusted to the free will of the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance of the deceased (if the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance of the deceased is to exercise the right of inheritance of the deceased, family life should be established and maintained on the basis of the dignity of the individual, and the State's guarantee should also be contrary to Article 36 (1) of the Constitution).

(3) The Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that the exercise of the right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance is possible is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 corporation and the defendant 2 is accepted in its reasoning, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)