1. The application for succession by the defendant succeeding intervenor and the appeal shall be dismissed in entirety; and

2. Expenses for participation in succession and expenses for appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The reasoning of the judgment in this part is as follows: “(c)” and “based grounds for recognition” among the facts based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

Except as mentioned in paragraph (1), it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On September 24, 2008, the Defendant, as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Kadan87030 on September 24, 2008, issued a provisional attachment order on the loans (hereinafter “the provisional attachment order of this case”), with the amount of loans (84,498,54 won for general corporate loan of August 18, 2005, and the principal and interest of KRW 45,000,000 for general corporate loan of KRW 45,00,000 on July 3, 2006; hereinafter “the loans claim of this case”) as the preserved right, pursuant to the Yeonsu-gu Incheon District Court Decision 5,078,100 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Accordingly, the provisional attachment order of this case was completed on September 24, 2008 as the provisional attachment registration of Incheon District Court Decision No. 13585, Sep. 135, 2008.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the application for succession by the defendant succeeding intervenor and the appeal are lawful;

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, the Plaintiff filed an application for intervention in succession on the ground that the Defendant had acquired the instant loan claim from the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant had acquired the instant loan claim from the Defendant.

(b) A lawsuit of demurrer against a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of an execution by asserting that there has already been rights to prevent a transfer or delivery of the ownership or other subject matter of execution for which the execution of compulsory execution or provisional seizure has already been commenced, and the creditor executing it against the subject matter of such execution is the other party, and if there is a successor of such creditor, the successor shall become the other party.

In addition, the creditor who enforced (provisional attachment) is the successor of the creditor.