The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s request for taking over a lawsuit is dismissed.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) the debtor A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as the "debtor") who is the contractor of the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") acquired the total amount of 56.7 billion won of the existing loan to the lender of this case, Inc. I, a truster and truster, on the ground that it failed to perform the obligation to parcel out the responsibility under the business agreement of this case; and (b) as long as the obligation to assume an overlapping debt becomes effective, the debtor is liable for damages due to the rescission of the sales contract for the 184 households designated as the obligor's acquisition of the apartment of this case, even if the obligor, among the apartment of this case, was liable for damages due to the default of the

Furthermore, the lower court determined that there was no reason to limit the obligor’s liability under the principle of equity in light of the legal nature of the sales of liability, the motive and circumstance of the conclusion of the instant business agreement, and the specific contents of the provisions on the sales of liability among the instant business agreement, etc.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the provisions on the allotment of liability under the business agreement of this case, the cancellation of the sales contract, and the limitation on liability

On the other hand, if a party files an application for resumption of oral argument to submit evidence after the closing of oral argument, whether to accept the application for resumption of oral argument belongs to the court's discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da14619, Jul. 23, 2009).