1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit;

1. Basic facts

A. On August 3, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for a self-reliance deposit loan and loaned KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “first loan”). On August 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a general loan agreement and loaned KRW 173,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “second loan”).

B. The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 197,085,643 through a voluntary auction of real estate when the Defendant delayed the payment of interest, and appropriated the said money for the expenses, interest, and principal of the first and second loans. Accordingly, on November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff left interest of KRW 2,151,020 on the first loans and interest of KRW 18,704,056 on the second loans.

C. On August 26, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for loans Nos. 1 and 2 to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on November 4, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Where a third party has intervened in a lawsuit pursuant to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act by asserting that while the lawsuit of determination on the plaintiff's claim is pending in the court, the third party succeeded to the whole or part of the right, which is the object of the lawsuit, and that the plaintiff does not dispute the succession of the succeeding intervenor, but if the plaintiff does not withdraw or withdraw the lawsuit, or remains in the lawsuit due to the defendant's disapproval, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation applies to the claims overlapped due to the succession between the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da46170, Oct. 23, 2019).

Accordingly, according to the above basic facts, the plaintiff's claim seeking the fulfillment of the claim of the first and second loans is examined, and the plaintiff transferred the claim of the first and second loans to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor on August 26, 2019 and did not hold the above claim.