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

2. The Seoul Central District Court against the plaintiff of the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant, the purport of the claim in a civil lawsuit must be specifically specified in the complaint, which is necessary to specify the subject matter of the lawsuit and the scope of the court’s trial, so that the content and scope can be clearly identified. A lawsuit, for which the purport of the claim is not clearly specified, is unlawful.

However, on October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff stated “the Defendant” of the instant claim as “the succeeding intervenor” on the date for the sixth pleading of pleading, and subsequently did not specifically state the purport of the claim against the Defendant, while modifying the purport of the claim. The same applies likewise thereafter. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been specified. Thus, it is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was not specified.

I would like to say.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 17, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a D contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), with loans KRW 7,000,000,000, interest rate of KRW 17.9% per annum, interest rate of 24% per annum, 12% per month on repayment date, repayment of principal and interest equal repayment method, repayment of principal and interest equal repayment method, and loan period of KRW 36 months. Around June 24, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 7,00,000 from C.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant one loan”). B.

On April 28, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into an E contract with C, 4,070,000 won for loans, 18.9% for interest rate, 28% for each month for repayment, and repayment of principal and interest on repayment method, and 36 months for lending period, and received loans from C as above 4,070,000 won on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant second loan”). C.

On February 5, 2004, the Defendant (F at the time) acquired the instant 12 loans from C on February 5, 2004, and the said assignment of claims was notified to the Plaintiff.

On April 30, 2010, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the principal and interest of the instant 12 loan claim and damages for delay. The said court accepted the said application.