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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 20,000,000 and its objection.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 5, 2007, Non-Party G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party G”) with respect to the establishment and transfer of the instant claim (i) determined KRW 1,370,000,000 as due date for payment to D on July 19, 2007, and lent KRW 1,370,000 to D at 19% per annum.

(2) On July 2, 2009, the non-party bank transferred the instant claim to the non-party H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant claim”). Thereafter, on May 25, 2010, the said claim was transferred to the non-party I Co., Ltd., the non-party 1, the plaintiff of the first instance trial on December 13, 201, and again, on June 3, 2013, to the non-party A Co., Ltd., the plaintiff succeeding to the lawsuit (the first trade name of the party was the J-LLC, and the transfer was changed thereafter) in sequence, and there was a notification of transfer at each time.

(3) The remaining principal amount reaches KRW 766,250,369 when the instant claim was transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

B. In the process of the instant lawsuit (1) D, the debtor of the instant claim, died on January 6, 201, before the instant lawsuit was filed.

(2) Although Nonparty A, the Plaintiff of the first instance trial, was aware of the death of D on January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 20,000,000 of the instant claims and interest or delay damages on the part of the instant claims by designating the Defendant as “the deceased’s heir,” on the ground that the heir was unaware of who was the heir, and filed a lawsuit seeking payment of said KRW 20,000,000 among the instant claims, the Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the indication with E and F, and the

(3) As the court of first instance did not serve on the domicile of E and F, the court proceeded with the lawsuit by public notice. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s successor filed an application for intervention in the lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff’s successor had been assigned the instant claim from the Plaintiff, and the court of first instance permitted this.

(4) On July 17, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the claims against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor E and F.

(5) However, E and F, on March 25, 201, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Seoul Family Court 2010Mo2789.