2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The first instance court partly accepted the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim and dismissed the remaining claims, and all of the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim claims were dismissed.

The defendant appealed only against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's main claim, and in the trial of the party, the defendant is only judged.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the defendant additionally determines as to the assertion added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff acquired all of the lease deposit claims and damages for delay against the Defendant from the Plaintiff, and filed an application for intervention in the first instance court.

However, the assignment contract in the name of the plaintiff was forged, and the matters concerning the acquisition and disposal of major assets are stipulated as the resolution of the board of directors according to the plaintiff's articles of incorporation. However, the above board of directors did not call, and the plaintiff's successor knew well that there was no resolution of the board of directors for the contract with the fact that the assignment contract was forged as above and that there was no resolution of the board of directors for such contract. Thus, the above assignment contract

B. 1) As to the claim transfer and takeover contract under the Plaintiff’s name (as to the claim transfer and takeover contract No. 32 and No. 1, the Defendant alleged that the above document was forged at the trial, but the Defendant’s appeal was made at the first instance court.