1. The defendant's appeal and the independent party's claim are all dismissed.

2. An appeal against the principal action.

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the court’s explanation is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance except for any addition and modification

(b) Additional, modified matters;

o. The following of the first instance judgment Nos. 14 and 15 of the 14th and the 14th 15th 14th 15th 2, and each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 19, 20, and 21 (including the provisional number) is not sufficient to recognize that the instant building constitutes the whole or an important part of the Defendant’s business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is changed to “

o. Following the decision of the court of first instance No. 14, No. 15 of the judgment, the following is added: “In addition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s consent to change of the name of the building owner to the Sejong Comprehensive Construction on April 7, 2004 constitutes a transfer of all or part of the business.”

o. Notice 14 of the first instance judgment; or

(2) Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (2) of this Article, “(2) The Defendant asserts that since N, a representative director of the Defendant, concluded the transfer price of the instant building by abusing his authority for the purpose of embezzlement regardless of the Defendant’s interest, it is not effective for the Defendant. Each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and 111 is insufficient to recognize that N embezzled the transfer price of the instant building that N was received from Ssung Comprehensive Construction for personal purposes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (c) Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is modified to “no longer reasonable without the need to further examine.”

2. Judgment on participation by an independent party

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the application for intervention is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s right to claim the change of the name of the owner of the instant building against the Defendant is a claim that is consistent with the Intervenor’s assertion.

The participation of the independent party shall be examined.