1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention are all dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff among the litigation costs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of the Agricultural Company D Limited Company D (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is the actual operator of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

D has been supplied aggregate after paying advance payment to E from June 2011.

B. On November 17, 2015, D: (a) asserted that D transferred (hereinafter “instant claim”); (b) aggregate of KRW 560,825,844, including aggregate advance payment of aggregate, national tax arrears, unpaid benefits, electricity charges, attorney’s fees, claims for return of paid-in fees on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) claims for personal loan, etc. (hereinafter “instant claim”); and (b) issued a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant on March 24, 2016 with content certification; and (c) the said notice of assignment of claims reached the Defendant on March 28, 2016.

C. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”) (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”) (hereinafter “Assignment to the instant claim”) with content certification, and sent the notice of assignment of claim to the Defendant on March 24, 2016, and on March 28, 2016, the said notice of assignment of claim reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 11 and 12 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Whether the Plaintiff withdraws from the lawsuit of this case or not, the Plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal from the lawsuit after the succeeding intervenor's participation in the lawsuit of this case, but the withdrawal from the lawsuit did not take effect due to the Defendant's consent. Thus, the Plaintiff's and the succeeding intervenor's claims continue to

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004).

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that D transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on November 17, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim. Thus, the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff.