1. The plaintiff's successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Defendant, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, and M (hereinafter “instant owner”) purchased eight and eight parcels in Namyang-si, Nam-si, Nam-si, and newly constructed, and planned to sell the instant canal wells (hereinafter “the instant canal wells”) composed of eight and 14 households on the ground.

On February 23, 2005, in relation to the land listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list among the land for a canal wells in the case of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 27, 2004 in the future of M, in relation to the land listed in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the attached list, in relation to the land listed in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the attached list, in the future of the defendant, and in relation to the land listed in paragraph 5 of the attached list,

After all, on January 6, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 5 was completed on December 9, 2005, and on June 14, 2007, on the share of 156/968 out of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 5 was completed for the defendant's future donation.

B. On January 19, 2007, the owner of the instant land for the new construction of another canal box construction project of this case determined the construction cost of 15,000,000,000, and the construction period from February 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007, respectively.

However, during the course of the construction of the instant canal wells, the construction was suspended on May 2007, while the construction of the instant canal wells.

On June 2, 2007, the building owner of this case decided to contract the new construction of the instant canal box to Qua operated by P, which had been subcontracted the parts of the structural construction from Heung Construction, and the said Q was an enterprise without a license for the comprehensive construction business. Therefore, the building owner could not receive a contract for all new construction works.

Therefore, the owner of this case takes office as an officer of the Plaintiff who has a comprehensive construction business license.