양수금
1. The plaintiff's successor's motion for intervention shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention in the instant succession on the ground that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.
However, the period during which the instant lawsuit pending is pending is on May 2, 2015, when the duplicate of the written application for the instant payment order was served on the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff’s application for intervention in the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that it does not constitute the transfer of the subject matter of lawsuit during the pending lawsuit
2. On the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff sought payment of the claim amount against the Defendant on the ground that the new bank in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. acquired the claim against the Defendant in sequence from Korea EF&A No. 27 (ownership) and CBS partnership loan (ownership). However, according to the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff transferred the claim against the Defendant on November 14, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s successor, and notified the Defendant of this fact on or around December 18, 2014. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is groundless due to the above transfer of the claim.