1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The original district court against the plaintiff by the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted at the court of first instance which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and Gap evidence No. 9 which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion is rejected; defendant No. 3, No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "No. 8;" No. 4, No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "for the defendant's succeeding intervenor who acquired the defendant's claim;" and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the following,

2.In addition, the following shall be added between 3rd and 11th of the judgment of the first instance:

“On the other hand, on October 2, 2014, the Defendant transferred the claim against the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim at that time. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor participated in the succession of the claim at the trial due to the above transfer of the claim, and the Defendant expressed his intention of withdrawal from the lawsuit on February 17, 2015.”

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant succeeding intervenor in this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, but it is decided to change the judgment of the court of first instance to which the defendant before the succession intervention was a party according to the succession intervention as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.