1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

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

3. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2003, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

On February 3, 2004, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on February 3, 2004 stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 57,504,300 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 14, 2003 to the date of full payment" shall be served on the defendant by public notice.

B. The claims based on the above judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant were assigned in sequence to D Co., Ltd. and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

C. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed a lawsuit claiming acquisition of money against the Defendant, and the Seoul Western District Court rendered a judgment of the first instance court stating that “The Defendant shall serve the Defendant with a copy, etc. of the complaint by public notice and shall pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor the amount of KRW 57,504,300 per annum from November 14, 2003 to September 30, 2015, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15 per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.”

(2015 group 41650) d.

On May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Defendant as the debtor with the Incheon District Court (2019TTTT 513076) (the foregoing application was cited on May 13, 2019, and the written decision was served on the Defendant on June 18, 2019.

E. On June 28, 2019, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion against the instant judgment and the instant judgment on the transfer money, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on February 4, 2020 and succeeded to the instant lawsuit by submitting the Plaintiff’s application for intervention on succession.

F. Meanwhile, on November 1, 2019, the appellate court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that "the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and the defendant shall comply with the decision of the Seoul Southern District Court 2019Na1799 regarding the instant case." The above ruling was finalized as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap or Eul evidence 2, 3, and Eul.