1. The defendant shall be the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

1. Determination as to the claims filed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Appointed Party) and the appointed party

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

B. Applicable Provisions: (a) On February 2, 208, Article 208(3)1 and Article 257(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s claim and the Plaintiff’s successor, the Intervenor (Appointed Party) and the Appointed’s claim are valid as a common co-litigation, since the Plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal of a lawsuit after the Plaintiff’s successor’s participation in the inheritance by the designated party and the Defendant’s consent by the other party was not obtained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004). According to the purport of the entire argument of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have transferred the ownership of the building indicated in the separate sheet and the claims stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant against the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s successor (Appointed Party) and the

3. The plaintiff's successor (appointed party) and the appointed party's claim are justified, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.