1. Part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages by subrogation among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

We examine whether the part concerning the claim for damages by subrogation of creditor among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate by ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for damages by subrogation of creditor.

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the principal creditor bank was not eligible for the Korea Development Bank's principal creditor bank in the course of the company improvement work (the Workoutout) for D Co., Ltd. (formerly: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter "E"), and the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation illegally exercised its voting rights.

In the workout process, the Korea Development Bank waived 47 vessels from among the 77 vessels under construction of E, and performed reverse accounting in order to compensate for damages therefrom. Based on this, the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation issued capital reduction and unfair new shares to E without compensation.

Under the above tort, E suffered losses, including approximately KRW 1.97.2 billion due to the shipowner’s claim for advance refund, and KRW 210 billion due to the loss of profits that could have been incurred due to the shipbuilding of the vessel.

The defendant is a vice-chairperson of the Financial Services Commission who shall maintain fairness and secure transparency and inspect and supervise the business of financial institutions, and fails to comply with the obligation to monitor and supervise the financial institutions related to the workout program, thereby causing the above damage to E.

The Plaintiffs exercise, by subrogation, the portion of damages due to advance refund claims and damages due to the loss of profit that could have been gained due to the construction of a ship among the damages compensation claims arising from the aforementioned illegal acts committed by E against the Defendant, based on the right to preserve a prior and ex post facto right to indemnity based on the joint and several guarantee of E, which is currently insolvent, and in this case, the Plaintiffs claim five million won as part of them.

B. Legal doctrine of debtor.