1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

3. The defendant succeeding intervenor is the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as “1. Basic Facts in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5 of the decision of the first instance shall be added to the following:

D. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant transferred the instant claim to the Defendant’s Intervenor based on the instant authentic deed, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim, and the above notification of the assignment of claim was served to the Plaintiff around that time (Evidence A 20). On May 11, 2007, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor received an execution clause for succession to the instant authentic deed from the New Seoul Law Firm on May 11, 2007.

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 5th and 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to a witness of the first instance.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant

(a) In cases where a claim on the title of execution satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignee due to the transfer of the claim on the title of execution, the standing to be a party to execution shall be changed to the assignee, and the execution obligee becomes final and conclusive as the assignee according to the succession execution clause, and thus the existing executive titles against the

Therefore, a subsequent suit of objection filed against a transferor is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, because it is filed against a non-qualified person, or seeks to exclude executive force of executive titles already extinguished.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23889 Decided February 1, 2008). B.

As seen earlier, on May 2, 2017, the Defendant transferred the claim on the instant Notarial Deed to the Defendant’s Intervenor, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim, and the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor was granted the instant execution clause on May 1, 201.

Therefore, it shall be deemed that the existing executive titles against the defendant have become extinct due to the grant of succession execution clause.