A right of subrogation of a creditor of a monetary claim may not be exercised only by the fact that the debtor has no intention to perform his/her obligation, and may be exercised where it is necessary to prevent reduction in general property due to his/

If a creditor's subrogation right is a monetary claim, it can not be exercised only by the debtor's non-performance of obligation, and it can be exercised when the debtor needs to prevent reduction of general property due to his insolvent.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

69Da835 delivered on July 29, 1969

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 11

Korea

Incheon support in the first instance court, Seoul Civil Service District Court Decision 68Na650 delivered on July 31, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

However, the obligee’s subrogation right cannot be exercised solely with the fact that the obligor is not willing to perform his obligation when the claim is a monetary claim (including the claim for damages) and can be exercised when it is necessary to prevent the decrease in the general property due to the obligor’s insolvency (Supreme Court Decision 69Da835 Decided July 29, 1969, 69Da835 Decided). The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim in this case, which is the reason for rejecting the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim, must prove that the Plaintiff is insolvent. In order to exercise the obligee’s subrogation right based on the claim for damages, there is no proof that the Plaintiff is insolvent. In addition, there is no other proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff is insolvent, and on the ground that there is no other proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s subrogation right of Nonparty 2 has a claim for damages against Nonparty 2, on behalf of Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim for the cancellation of the cause invalidation is groundless, and it cannot be asserted to appeal against this conclusion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs for the appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho