1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The action of the co-litigants shall be dismissed.

B. The Defendants are the defendants.

1. Change in the status of the party (1) The Seoul Central District Court rendered a bankruptcy ruling against the Sejong District Court (2010Hahap57) on September 8, 2010, and appointed the NN as the trustee in bankruptcy at the same time as the bankruptcy ruling was rendered on September 8, 2010.

(2) On March 7, 2011, the trustee in bankruptcy filed an application for intervention in the lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on the ground that the right to collect the claim for the refund of the purchase price, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, was restored from the Plaintiff and the Intervenor and succeeded to that right.

(3) On March 9, 2011, the O Housing Association applied for the intervention of the succeeding Intervenor, and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Plaintiff’s new Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation applied for the intervention of the succeeding Intervenor while withdrawing from the lawsuit on April 7, 2011.

2. The reasons why this court shall explain the “the basic facts” and “the determination of the principal safety defense” in the judgment of the court of first instance are all “the plaintiff (ex officio).” The part concerning “1.8 billion won and the damages for delay thereof” in the main safety defense is deleted (the succeeding intervenor does not claim the part concerning KRW 1.8 billion and the damages for delay thereof). Thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. According to Articles 348(1) and 424 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, compulsory execution against the property belonging to the bankrupt estate based on a bankruptcy claim shall lose its effect against the bankrupt estate, and the bankruptcy claim shall be exercised pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure. Since the claim for the return of the purchase-price against the Defendants in Sejong Sejong, a claim subject to the seizure order of this case, belongs to the bankrupt estate due to the bankruptcy of Sejong, a claim subject to the seizure order of this case, the intervenor's seizure and collection order of this case lost its effect, and accordingly, the intervenor lost its standing to be a party.

Therefore, it is true.