1. The defendant's successor's successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant's Busan District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2007, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 8,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from August 17, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on August 31, 2007.

B. On January 2019, after the expiration of the statute of limitations on the above payment order (hereinafter “the instant claim”), the Defendant delegated the collection of the instant claim to the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, and on January 30, 2019, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor applied for the seizure of the movable property under the name of the Plaintiff to Busan District Court E as the Defendant’s representative on January 30, 2019.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention by the defendant successor is legitimate, since the defendant successor's successor is not the transferee of the claim in this case, the application for intervention by the defendant successor's successor is illegal.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant seems to have delegated the collection of the claim of this case to the plaintiff to the defendant succeeding intervenor and did not have transferred the claim of this case.

In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendant’s successor, including the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 9, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant’s successor acquired the instant claim from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the application for the succession of the defendant's successor does not meet the requirements for participation and is in an incidental law.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the assertion of illegal cause of payment is that the Defendant, who operated an entertainment business, operated the instant claim.