1. The part of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim for delay damages against Defendant E shall be dismissed.

2.(a)

Defendant D.

1. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. On December 31, 2019, the Plaintiff indicated the claim as indicated in the grounds for the claim, except for adding the fact that the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant lawsuit by transferring the claim for the refund of KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant E, and notification of the transfer on or around April 7, 2020, the Plaintiff transferred the claim to Defendant E.

(b) Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. The part which partially dismissed Defendant E’s obligation to return the lease deposit is related to Defendant D’s obligation to deliver real estate as stated in the separate sheet, and is not in a performance delay, and even if the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of future claim, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor does not require a prior claim for damages for delay on the lease deposit to be returned by Defendant E.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim for late payment damages against Defendant E is unlawful and thus dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim judgment on the plaintiff's claim was transferred to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor while the lawsuit in this case was pending, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit.