1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.

3...

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are creditors holding KRW 797,500 as advertising price for the defendant. Since the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is the transferee of the above advertising price claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount claimed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

B. The advertising fee claimed by the Plaintiff is the debt of the Defendant Company B, which was the representative director, and the Defendant, the representative director, has no obligation to pay it.

2. The defendant cannot be deemed to bear the duty to pay advertising price solely on the ground that the defendant, who held office as representative director, was liable to pay advertising price to the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant, who held office as representative director, is liable to pay advertising price to the defendant

3. If so, the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's successor are dismissed due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and all of the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's successor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.