1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant shall pay to the Intervenor succeeding the Plaintiff KRW 8,493,876 and this.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor transferred the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant under the judgment of the first instance court of this case, and applied for a payment order to the Seoul Central District Court to interrupt extinctive prescription.

On May 21, 2018, the defendant filed an objection against the payment order on May 23, 2018 after receiving the original copy of the payment order, and then filed an objection against the payment order.

Therefore, the defendant was aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance on May 21, 2018 or May 23, 2018 at the latest.

The appeal of this case is unlawful, since it filed a subsequent appeal after the lapse of two weeks.

B. Determination 1) Under the facts of recognition, each of the following facts can be recognized by each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or is obvious to this court) of this case, the first instance court of this case rendered a favorable judgment on July 22, 2008 after serving a notice of the copy of the complaint and the date for pleading on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was also served by public notice.

B) The progress of the subsequent suit ① on June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for a payment order for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the said claim that was transferred to the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) and the payment order was served on the Defendant on May 21, 2018. ② The Defendant filed an application for a perusal of the demand record on May 23, 2018. The Defendant did not raise an objection against the instant payment order, and the demand procedure was transferred to the Plaintiff (3) on August 7, 2018, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for the alteration of the claim and the cause of the claim, and submitted a written objection to the Defendant on May 23, 2018.