1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

Plaintiff

And all the lawsuits of the Intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendants.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows. The reasons why this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated are as follows. 5 of the same face [based grounds for recognition] are as follows: (a) together with the addition of "documents Nos. 1 through 3, 6, sick, or 1 through 3, sick, 1 and 2" to the column of the same face [based grounds for recognition], the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, they are cited by the main sentence

(o) The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the Plaintiff’s creditor, is obligated to repay the Plaintiff the cancellation cost, such as collateral security, the loan of operating expenses of the association, the subrogated amount, and the project cost, and the Plaintiff shared the Plaintiff’s share of the Plaintiff’s contribution against the Defendants as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 3. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received an order of seizure, collection, or seizure and assignment of the claim as indicated in

2. Whether the request for intervention by succession is legitimate;

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor Q and R received a seizure and collection order against part of the Plaintiff’s contribution against the Defendants, and filed an application for intervention in succession against the pertinent Defendants, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s application for intervention in succession is unlawful, on the ground that the Plaintiff merely grants the right to collect the claims attached to the execution creditor who received the order of seizure and collection, and that it does not transfer the seized claim itself, the Plaintiff’s application for intervention in succession is invalid.

However, as seen earlier, if there exists a seizure and collection order, the standing to file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the garnishee shall be transferred to the execution creditor subject to the order. Therefore, if the debtor has already filed such lawsuit, the execution creditor may participate as a successor. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. This.