1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and D seeking the payment of the agreed amount, and the appellate court of the said lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2016Ss. 490) confirmed that “C and D jointly paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2017, and shall pay the Plaintiff a delay payment amounting to 15% per annum per annum on the date of the said payment.”

B. C is currently insolvent.

(C) . [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, described in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport before oral argument.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) (a) Nonparty E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was running a redevelopment project in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. F around 2007, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased money to the Nonparty Company, and C also leased KRW 70 million to the Nonparty Company. However, the Defendant, on behalf of the obligees including C, set up a collateral on the obligees’s land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the name of the Defendant, Ulsan-gu, U.S. as a collateral for the obligees’ loans.

(2) After that, the instant real estate was disposed of as a voluntary auction, and the Defendant received dividends of KRW 520,053,422 in the distribution procedure, so the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 70 million to C.

I would like to say.

The plaintiff, as a creditor to C, seek payment of the above settlement amount of KRW 70 million in subrogation of insolvent C.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion C merely received a transfer of KRW 70 million from I, J, and K to the non-party company, and the creditor of the loan of KRW 70 million is not C but I, J, and K.

C. The issue is whether the judgment was based on whether C lent KRW 70 million to the non-party company, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4 through 7, 8-1, 2, 9, 10-1, 2, 16, 17-1, 2, and 17-2, and witness I’s testimony, respectively.