2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit.

A. On April 21, 2003, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,915,527 from Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”).

B. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred C&I’s loan claims against the Defendant of the foreign exchange bank (hereinafter “instant loan claims”); (b) subsequently, C&I transferred the said claims to the Intervenor on June 19, 2012; and (c) the Intervenor, who was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of claims from C&I, notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims on October 17, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In a case where the succeeding intervenor, after the plaintiff transferred his claim to the succeeding intervenor and notified the defendant of the assignment of claim, applied for a defect in the application for intervention by succession, but failed to withdraw with the defendant's disapproval, the plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim are ordinarily effective as a common co-litigation, and the court shall decide on the plaintiff's claim and the claims adopted by the succeeding intervenor

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004).

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant loan claims against the Defendant were transferred in succession to the Intervenor during the course of the instant lawsuit. As such, the Plaintiff did not have any loan claims against the Defendant any longer, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims from the foreign exchange bank. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further review.

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. The Intervenor’s assertion (1) is legitimate from the foreign exchange bank to the Intervenor.