1. The motion of the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, and the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of "a loan of KRW 180,000,000" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "a loan of KRW 180,000" in Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "first loan"), and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus,

2. Determination on the motion of the defendant succeeding intervenor

A. According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, such third party may apply for intervention in succession to the court in which the lawsuit is pending. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of institution of lawsuit,

A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate

If there is any defect in a case, the application for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da85789 Decided April 26, 2012). B.

On March 30, 2015, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor filed a motion for intervention on the ground that the claim arising from the first loan was transferred by the Defendant.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the defendant transferred the claim by means of loan No. 1 to the intervenor succeeding to the defendant on March 30, 2015, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, and sent the notice of the transfer to the plaintiff on April 17, 2015, but it is recognized that the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is the first and second loans secured by the collateral security right of this case. In light of the fact that the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is the right to claim a dividend payment in accordance with the distribution schedule of this case prepared on the basis of the first and second loans secured by the collateral security right of this case, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant succeeding to the lawsuit of this case was acquired by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove

Therefore, it is true.