1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.

1. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of the corresponding parts as follows: As such, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” (Articles 3 through 8, 17, the third through 17, of the judgment of the first instance). Therefore, this part shall be

Part 6 of the first instance court's decision "No. 31, 2013" in Part 14 of the second instance court's decision is "No. 31, 2010." B. The first instance court's decision No. 7 and No. 17 and 18 was rendered.

“A decision to prohibit the disposal of claims” was issued.

(C) An independent party intervenor filed an appeal with respect to the said judgment under the 5th sentence of the 8th judgment of the first instance court, and continued to exist in the Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2040297 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff also filed an appeal”), and the petition of appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order of correction on October 15, 2014.

(a) add ";"

2. Summary of the assertion by the independent party intervenor;

(a) An independent party intervenor has a claim based on the payment order of Suwon District Court Branch 2012 tea 6785, Sungnam Branch.

In addition, on December 6, 2011, the transfer of the instant claim to the Plaintiff for the return of down payment constitutes a fraudulent act and should be revoked. If so, the said claim is returned to the sexual news again, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the collection amount to the sexual news.

Accordingly, an independent party intervenor claims the payment of the collection amount of KRW 110 million and damages for delay on behalf of the defendant, which is insolvent, on behalf of the defendant.

B. Meanwhile, an independent party intervenor received the provisional disposition order of this case where the right to claim restitution based on the obligee's right of revocation or the right to claim compensation for value is a preserved right, and the transfer of the right to return the down payment of this case to the Plaintiff by Sungdae constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, it