2. As to the accidents listed in the separate sheet, according to the participation by the defendant in succession.

A. From January 23, 2018 to January 23, 2019, the Plaintiff is a company that executes construction works to expand the four-lane roads from Dai to Eri by six-lanes. The Defendant is the owner of Fsch Rexroth car (hereinafter “instant car”).

B. On April 22, 2018, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that, on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor driven the instant car on April 22, 2018, around 05:30, as indicated in the separate sheet, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor claimed that, while driving the instant car on behalf of the Defendant and driving the instant car in the direction of Pocheon City, H State-si, the Plaintiff left the road in the direction of Pocheon City, while driving the Ha State-si in the G outing Zone where the Plaintiff was doing construction of the road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle regulatory salary left the vehicle on the road in the direction of Pocheon City, caused an accident that partly damages the instant car (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such,

C. On the other hand, on February 11, 2019, while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the defendant transferred to the defendant succeeding intervenor the right of notification of the assignment of claims to the plaintiff due to the accident of this case. The defendant succeeding intervenor notified the plaintiff of the assignment of claims on behalf of the defendant on the same day. The notification was reached to the plaintiff around that time.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the intervention by the defendant, the plaintiff filed an application for intervention by the defendant on the grounds that the intervenor succeeded to the defendant acquired the damage claim arising from the accident in this case from the defendant, and the assignment of claims between the defendant and the intervenor by the defendant constitutes a trust of lawsuit and thus null and void since the assignment of claims falls under a trust of lawsuit, the intervention by the defendant succeeded to the defendant constitutes unlawful. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the assignment of claims between the defendant and the intervenor by the defendant was made mainly