1. The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 27,000,000 and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 201, D leased KRW 30 million, without rent, from the Plaintiff, Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu E-Ba 302 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 14, 2012, the Intervenor acquired the claim for return of the leased deposit amounting to KRW 30 million from D, and was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims. On August 23, 201, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the assignment with the content certification with the fixed date, and served the Plaintiff with the content certification on the 31st of the same month.

C. Meanwhile, on August 13, 2013, the Defendant drafted a authentic deed of promissory notes with the law firm No. 384, as of August 1, 2014, as of August 1, 2014, with respect to promissory notes with the Defendant as the issuer, as of September 1, 2013, which were issued as of September 1, 2013, and the Defendant as the payee.

On September 1, 2014, based on the above notarial deed, the Defendant received the claim to return the remainder of KRW 27 million out of D’s lease deposit from this court under this court’s order for the seizure and collection of claims under this Court’s 2014TT25187. On September 11, 2014, the said order was served on the Plaintiff on September 11, 2014.

E. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 3 million won a down payment, and 27 million won a balance on October 3, 2014, respectively, to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1, 4, Byung 4 and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on participation by an independent party

A. The Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor paid the amount collected by the Plaintiff without any legal cause, even though the content certification stating the purport of the Intervenor’s claim transfer, prior to arrival of the above collection order, was first served, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the amount to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sought confirmation that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the Intervenor, and at the same time, sought payment of KRW 30 million.

(b)the participation of the independent Party in the 1st independent Party whether the request for participation is legitimate;