1. The successor intervenor shall dismiss the application for participation of the luminous and petroleum company; and

2. The plaintiff's claim and the successor B.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff accepted the construction cost on the ground of 16,132 square meters of the land in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, where the Defendant purchased from the Defendant around January 1, 2009, with the intent to pay the construction cost immediately after a factory is operated and the sales was generated, on the ground of 16,132 square meters of the land in Busan-gun, where the Defendant purchased from the Defendant.

(2) Accordingly, in January 2009, the Plaintiff started the construction from the end of January 2009, and started the construction from the end of March 2009. From the end of March 2009, the Plaintiff conducted the survey for the construction, the construction work for the site of approximately 4,00 square meters, the construction work for the soil and sand removal, the construction work for the building site, the construction work for the soil and sand removal work, the drainage channel for the mountain floor, the construction of access roads, the installation of access roads and packing work for the boundary unit reinforcement work, and other civil petitions and appurtenant work.

(3) However, the Defendant’s de facto owner E and F demanded the Plaintiff to suspend construction until the end of March 2009, when the above construction was in progress. Around that time, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 80 million with the other settlement of accounts.

(4) Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of other settlement of accounts and damages for delay.

B. Determination - Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for the settlement of accounts of this case exists between the Defendant (the name of the Defendant corporation was G corporation around January 2009, which was the H corporation on March 19, 2009; the I corporation was changed in sequence to C on September 3, 2009; and the C corporation on May 3, 201) and the Defendant (the name of the Defendant corporation was changed to H corporation on May 3, 201).

Each statement of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 13, which is the testimony of the witness J, the plaintiff or the content certification of the above K, conforming to the above argument, is hard to believe that the probative value is considerably different in light of the relation with the plaintiff, and there is no other direct evidence to prove the fact. It is reasonable to recognize the fact that each statement of evidence Nos. 1-2-7 and 9-1-12-2, which corresponds to the above argument, has reached an agreement on the settlement of accounts as above.