1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;

3. The time when the action has been brought.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning the plaintiff's claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On January 26, 2018, the Defendant succeeding intervenor acquired a claim based on the judgment stated in the claim claim from the Defendant on January 26, 2018, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claim at that time, the Defendant succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on the ground that the whole or part of the subject matter of the instant lawsuit was the right of

It is allowed that a third party has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation, which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court.

(See Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, since the defendant succeeding intervenor asserted that he had already succeeded to the rights or obligations, which are the object of the lawsuit, before February 23, 2018, which is the date of the lawsuit of the plaintiff, the defendant succeeding intervenor's application for intervention is unlawful by itself.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is justifiable since the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim on September 3, 1983 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1027, Sept. 27, 1983). Thus, the plaintiff'