1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the company that sells imported alcoholic beverages.

B, while working in the Plaintiff Company, managed approximately 12 main points, which are customers of the Plaintiff Company, and was in charge of the supply of alcoholic beverages to the main points and the collection of the price therefor.

However, B, while managing C's main points among the customers, received a total of KRW 145,320,027 from C's main points from January 31, 201 to June 30, 2014 to his/her own personal account, but instead instead did not deposit and treat the amount of KRW 26,338,550 among them to the Plaintiff's personal account, and embezzled the amount of KRW 26,38,550.

In addition, although B received all alcoholic beverage payments from the customers in the same manner, it did not deposit the amount of 15,635,888 won in the company of the Plaintiff and arbitrarily consumed it and embezzled it.

As such, the Plaintiff Company has a claim against B for damages arising from occupational embezzlement of at least KRW 41,974,438 (C main points of KRW 26,338,550) (D main points of KRW 15,635,888).

B around June 30, 2014, sold Nos. 201, 1106, Daegu Suwon-gu E building under one’s name, and around that time, purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the name of the Defendant under one’s own name under one’s own name under one’s own name, which is valid as a marital title trust between husband and wife.

The Plaintiff Company terminated the above title trust agreement on the instant real estate in subrogation of B, who is insolvent, as a creditor to B, and asks the Defendant, a title truster, to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant real estate.

2. Whether there exists a creditor’s right to the debtor to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor subrogation lawsuit as to whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not is subject to ex officio investigation by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da3234, Apr. 23, 2009), and the creditor subrogation lawsuit is subrogated to the creditor subrogation lawsuit.