1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All the claims of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit;

1. The fact that the intervenor taking over the Plaintiff’s claim received an execution clause by succession from the first instance court on December 23, 2016 is as seen earlier. As such, the intervenor taking over the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, thereby losing the Plaintiff’s right to seek payment of the acceptance amount of this case against the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit without further review.

2. Although the Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor claimed payment against the Defendant in this case regarding the claim of the Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor, the Defendant asserted that there was no money to be paid to the Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor in the subsequent appellate brief dated January 13, 2017.

However, the record of the trial of the first instance court of this case was already destroyed after the lapse of the preservation period prior to the defendant's legitimate appeal for completion, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff cannot be present at present, and as a result, the first instance court, which is a small amount of claim, is proceeding by service by public notice, does not state the reasons therefor.

On March 9, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for intervention in the acquisition of the Plaintiff with respect to the Intervenor, and this Court decided to permit the acceptance on March 9, 2018. However, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, as well as the Plaintiff, may not assert the grounds for further claims or submit evidence after being served with the petition of appeal, the statement of grounds for appeal, etc. by public notice at the trial.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the claims of the plaintiff's acceptance intervenor, and the claims of the plaintiff's acceptance intervenor are without merit.

3. Thus, the claims of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor should be dismissed in entirety.

The judgment of the first instance, which differs from this conclusion, is unfair, and thus revoked, and all the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff takeover intervenor are dismissed.