1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit and the independent party intervenor against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A” of KRW 21,570 km 5,66,760 on June 13, 2014, except for cases where “A” of KRW 21,200 km 5,66,760 on June 21, 2014; and (b) therefore, (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A” shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the same Act.

2. Declaration of the completion of the lawsuit concerning the part concerning the main lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance and the part concerning the claim of the independent party intervenor;

A. In a creditor subrogation lawsuit as to whether an application for intervention by an independent party is lawful, where an independent party intervenor asserts the right of subrogation of the plaintiff and participates in the lawsuit against the defendant, and makes a claim as to the same contents as the plaintiff's claim, it cannot be deemed that the

(1) Article 410(1) and Article 410(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 12892, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “If a debtor transfers any property which is the subject of the right of repurchase before the declaration of bankruptcy, the right of repurchase may file a claim for the transfer of the right of claim for performance of consideration, in return, with the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da66917, 66924).”

The same shall apply to cases where a trustee in bankruptcy transfers any property which is the object of the right of repurchase.

As a result of the exercise of the alternative right of repurchase based on this case, the right to seek the transfer of the goods-price claim against the defendant under this case, and the defendant filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the goods-price claim against the defendant in lieu of the defendant, asserting that the respondent has a claim for the goods-price claim against the defendant under this case.

However, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5298975 decided August 2016, 2016, which sought the transfer of the claim for the payment of goods against the defendant against the intervenor of the independent party for the reasons as alleged above.