1. The plaintiff's successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The time when the action has been brought.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the motion for intervention in succession by the court of this case is written or added to the intervenor’s application for intervention in succession by the court of this case. As such,

2. Korea Asset Management Corporation shall be built up to four pages of the parts to be dried up with "Korea Asset Management Corporation".

12. The amount of bonds shall be calculated by adding "the amount of bonds" to "the amount of bonds".

3. Where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while an ex officio judgment on whether an application for intervention by succession is legitimate is pending in the court, such third party may file an application for intervention by succession with the court in which the lawsuit is pending (Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act). Such application for intervention by succession constitutes a kind of lawsuit, and

A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate

If there is any defect in a case, the request for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

Meanwhile, the original party who has transferred the right or obligation, which is the object of a lawsuit, to the succeeding intervenor while the lawsuit is pending, may withdraw from the lawsuit with the consent of the other party, and the judgment on the withdrawing party also has the effect of the withdrawal of the lawsuit (Article 80 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the withdrawal of such lawsuit is allowed only where the intervention in succession is legitimate, in cases where the intervention in succession is illegal, the withdrawal of the original party

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). Examining the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s application for intervention by succession ex officio in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

The Intervenor asserts to the effect that, as the Intervenor acquired the instant claim from the Plaintiff on August 8, 2019, the Intervenor succeeded to the subject matter of the instant lawsuit and filed an application for intervention in succession.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case is from the defendant and the non-party Corporation.