1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for an additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion raised in the court of the first instance as to this case’s assertion, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s co-defendant C has the right to claim reimbursement of expenses or subrogation equivalent to the above loans pursuant to Article 688 or 739 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff exercised the above right on behalf of the Defendant against the Defendant in insolvency. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff exercise his right to claim reimbursement of expenses or subrogation on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to Article 688 or 739 of the Civil Act, inasmuch as the loan of this case was raised by Co-Defendant C in the first instance court, which operated the Defendant’s business place, and was actually transferred to the Defendant’s account.

However, even if the instant loans were used for E-related business funds as alleged by the Plaintiff, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the co-defendant C of the first instance trial appears to have participated in E-related business, and in the process, it cannot be ruled out that the existence and amount of the claim may vary depending on the internal relationship between the Defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. As such, the evidence submitted to this court alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the co-defendant of the first instance trial held the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Articles 688 and 739 of the Civil Act against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.