1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

2. The plaintiff acceptance intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where correction or addition is made as follows or where additional decision is made as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 4

The first instance court's 6th sentence " was delivered" shall be revised to "the delivery was made, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the P name on August 26, 2009."

On November 25, 2015, the 7th day of the judgment of the first instance, “C. The Plaintiff transferred the instant claim in the purport of the claim to the intervenors on November 25, 2015, which was pending in the trial proceedings, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of the claim at that time.”

The 7th end of the judgment of the first instance, the 8th 4th, and 9 second 2nd mix “Plaintiff” shall be amended to “the Intervenor,” and the 8th mix “the Plaintiff” shall be amended to “the Intervenor.”

Then, 14 pages 14 of the first instance judgment’s text and 14 pages “The Intervenor has understood that the Defendants understood that the introduction of materials is delayed than the date specified in each of the instant text, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).”

The following shall be added to 7 pages 14 of the first instance judgment “the fact deemed to be sound”.

【The Intervenor asserts that the Defendants requested on June 5, 2009 that the Plaintiff brought in materials at the construction site of this case and demanded the J not to pay obligations to the Plaintiff.

However, evidence such as evidence No. 12 is insufficient to recognize that the time of request was the same time as the intervenor's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the letter of this case does not contain a statement demanding the transfer of ownership of G-based building at the time of leisure, and it seems that the plaintiff did not have a big problem about Defendant C’s failure to transfer ownership of the above G-based building to the plaintiff at the time of drawing up the letter of this case.

The above G ground.