1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows, with the exception of adding or adding to the reasoning of the court of first instance, and the judgment on the assertion by the independent party intervenor in this court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be filled with “1,106,418,995 won” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance with “1,118,56,985 won.”

Part 9 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be followed by the following parts:

“1) The independent party intervenor asserts that the Defendant met the requirements for setting up against the assignment of the first priority right part of the second priority right, since the Defendant consented or consented in advance to the transfer of the second priority right part of the instant second priority right.

C. According to the evidence Nos. 2 through 9, Byung evidence Nos. 12, Byung evidence Nos. 13, Byung evidence Nos. 13, Byung evidence Nos. 22, and Byung evidence Nos. 23 (including branch numbers), the intervenor of Q and independent party receives the part of the first priority right of this case from Q and six other persons on December 24, 2010, and notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim by a certificate with a fixed date; the defendant notifies the independent party intervenor of the implementation of the public auction real estate of the public auction on March 24, 2011 and March 6, 2015; the notification of the change of the public auction of the public auction on June 1, 2012; the intervenor of independent party received the part of the second priority right of this case to the defendant on September 1, 2017, requesting the payment of dividends; and it is recognized that the defendant sent the dividend to the independent party intervenor on September 19, 2017.

However, on the other hand, Q and an independent party intervenor unilaterally notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

The defendant claims the payment of dividends to the second priority right of this case on the ground that the independent party intervenor or the independent party intervenor requested the payment of dividends.