1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the remainder.

1. cite the judgment of the court of first instance and theory of lawsuit

A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for filling, cutting, or adding as described in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court cited the summary as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In conclusion, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim asserted by the Intervenor succeeding to the lawsuit has expired, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case by the Intervenor succeeding to the lawsuit should be dismissed

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal by the plaintiff's successor is groundless.

2. Supplementary argument of the judgment of the court of first instance

A. (1) Supplementary part is the case involving the establishment of the authenticity of the disposition document, repayment, and the completion of extinctive prescription. There are no grounds for appeal, defenses, etc. different from the judgment of the court of first instance, and detailed grounds for appeal regarding the cause of appeal, re-claim, etc. were asserted as the grounds for appeal.

(2) The Defendant, from the first instance court, denied the authenticity of the loan certificate, which is a disposal document (written evidence A or evidence No. 7-1 applied by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and the witness Gap applied by the Plaintiff who has withdrawn from the court, but the judgment of the first instance court that recognized the authenticity of the loan certificate by taking account of the investigation results conducted at the time close to the time from the date of preparation is justifiable in light of the evidence law, etc.

Furthermore, the result of the appraisal (written appraisal submitted on January 11, 2018) conducted at the request of the defendant at the appellate court is also the same as the judgment of the first instance court.

However, even if the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, the loan certificate A or No. 7-1, .