1. The part of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim for confirmation of rights shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around April 2006, D agreed to borrow 112,160,000 won from the Plaintiff as interest rate of 9% per annum and as of April 30, 2008, and to lose the benefit of time when the interest was overdue for at least two months.

The defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of D.

B. On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received a collection order on November 4, 2016 with respect to “the amount until it reaches that point out of the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Defendant,” with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff and the third obligor as the Defendant, and then the said order was served on the Defendant, the third obligor, who is the Defendant.

C. On February 6, 2017, Growa Co., Ltd. received an order of seizure and assignment of claims on February 6, 2017 with respect to “the amount until it reaches an amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, out of the Plaintiff’s loans to Defendant and Defendant D,” with the Defendant of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff and the third obligor as the Defendant, and the decision was sent to D on February 9, 2017, respectively to the Defendant on February 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-1-2 evidence, Eul-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor on the part of the claim for confirmation of rights is entitled to the above 1-B.

The plaintiff's payment of the collection amount and the above 1-A against the defendant on the ground that he received the seizure and collection order mentioned in the paragraph.

It is sought to confirm that the loan claim stated in the subsection is against the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff is demanding the performance against the defendant while participating in the succession of the collection amount. Thus, the plaintiff's separate lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claims for the collection amount exist in the plaintiff cannot be viewed as valid and appropriate means to resolve disputes, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation.

The part of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim for confirmation of the above rights is dismissed as illegal.

B. Claims subject to an order of seizure against the portion demanding the payment of money are independent of property value.