1. Based on the application for succession participation in the trial court, paragraph 1 of the order of the first instance court shall be amended as follows:

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (d) the Plaintiff transferred all of the claims secured by each of the instant collective security rights to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on November 12, 2014, which was after the closing of argument in the first instance trial, and completed the notification of the transfer thereof; and accordingly, the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff’s intervention in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the time. The Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” as provided in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Civil Procedure Act is changed to “the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff”; and the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim of the instant principal lawsuit at the trial at the same time as the written reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim of this case

2. According to the aforementioned facts of recognition as to the addition, on November 12, 2014, which was after the closing of argument in the first instance trial of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the claim for dividend payment held by the Plaintiff during the instant auction procedure based on each of the instant collective security rights, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for dividend payment based on each of the instant collective security rights was transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that he is still a creditor paying dividends based on the right to collateral security is still without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's successor's claim of this case is justified, and the plaintiff's claim of this lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed, respectively, due to the lack of reasonable grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance that the part against the plaintiff is modified as above.