1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. On December 20, 2013, C extended a loan of KRW 100 million and KRW 215 million from the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and set up a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million as to D (hereinafter “instant vessel”) against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

On December 20, 2013, the Defendant provided a credit guarantee with a credit guarantee amount of KRW 100,000,000 as to the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s obligation of KRW 100,000 loans to the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”) (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”).

On July 4, 2017, the Intervenor sought payment of the above credit guarantee liability to the Defendant.

The Defendant paid KRW 87,795,233 to the Defendant’s Intervenor around July 7, 2017 (hereinafter “instant subrogation”) and was transferred from the Defendant’s Intervenor as to the instant right to collateral security of KRW 85 million.

In the auction procedure with respect to the instant vessel, the Defendant received KRW 46,832,187, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant was paid KRW 203,037,545, respectively.

The Defendant’s Intervenor returned KRW 38,167,813 out of the dividends to the Defendant.

On the other hand, around June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was created by C with regard to the instant vessel with a maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 9 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s business entrusted agency, and the Defendant’s Intervenor, in collusion with the Defendant, transferred part of the instant collateral security to the Defendant in order to receive more money in the auction procedure on the instant vessel, as there is a concern that the Defendant could not recover the claim for several recommended loans against C.

In addition, the Intervenor did not dispose of the bad debt, and the Defendant subrogated for the debt of the instant loan.

3.2