채권자대위소송에서 일부청구의 소송물과 판결효력 - 대법원 2015. 7. 23.선고 2013다30301,2013다30325판결과 관련하여 -

Article 404 of the Korean Civil Code prescribes a right of subrogtaion, as a way of preparing compulsory execution. Majority of academics and the Supreme Court consider it as a legally permitted litigation and third party’s lawsuit, and one obligee’s subrogation action’s judgement effects and res judicate affect the other obligees of the debtor, if the debtor becomes aware of a subrogation action having been litigated by one obligee. Whether the other obligees could take part in previous and continuing one obligee’s subrogation action by joint action intervention, major opinion of academics has accepted (should state that the majority has accepted which view) but there has been no judicial case. By the way, recently, the Supreme Court 2013da30301,30325 case declares definitely that the former subrogation action’s judgement effect expands to the other obligees, and they can participate in continuing former subrogation action by joint action intervention through Article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case is so affirmative, because it is logical and is in conformity with the precedent judgement effect’s theory that has been accepted before. But in my opinion, the Supreme Court’s decision in that case has a critical defect, the other obligee’s joint action intervention’s requesting subject matter just accounts for part of the former obligee’s subrogation action in partial requesting case. In this article, I suggest that the subject matters and amounts of several subrogative obligees should not be divided in lager obligee’s requesting amount, but be added, in partial requests of subrogation action cases.