1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed;

3. The participation by succession.

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent in records or obvious to this court.

① On the ground that A lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant on September 5, 1997, and KRW 15 million on February 27, 1998, the Union claimed for payment of interest and delay damages on each of the above amounts and interest thereon.

In the Cheongju District Court Decision 99Da2453 delivered on August 2, 2001, Cheongju District Court Decision 99Da2453 delivered on September 5, 1997, the loans as of September 5, 1997 did not have any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part of the defendant, and the loans as of February 27, 1998 were dismissed on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the above loans were given to the defendant.

② The Cheongju District Court Decision 2001Na4133, Jun. 7, 2002, which is the appellate court and the decision subject to review, recognized the authenticity of the agreement on loans as of September 5, 1997 on the grounds of the results of appraisal by the appellate court, etc., and accepted the first instance judgment and the claim against the Defendant of the A association, which recognized that the A association paid the loans to the Defendant on February 27, 1998.

The above appellate judgment became final and conclusive on July 4, 2002.

③ Although the Defendant filed a complaint against E, etc., for the reason that each of the loan agreements used as evidence in the judgment of the appellate court was forged, the Defendant was rather indicted due to a false accusation, etc.

The Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Da4777, 2004Ma1588, Feb. 17, 2005, rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of non-prosecutions, etc. against the defendant on the grounds that E is likely to arbitrarily prepare a loan agreement and receive the loan, and that E, I, and C’s statements are difficult to believe.

Although the Prosecutor appealed, the Prosecutor's appeal 2005No525 was finalized as it is.

④ E and I respectively appeared as a witness in the Daejeon District Court 2005No525 decided Sep. 5, 1997, and stated I in the Loan Agreement as D, respectively, and the Defendant written in writing.

“I” and “I” on September 5, 1997.