1. The plaintiff's successor's motion for intervention shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 186,794,310.

1. We examine ex officio the determination as to the application for intervention by succession, and the succession intervention requires that the right or obligation, which is the subject of the lawsuit intended for intervention, has been succeeded to “in the continuation of a lawsuit” (see Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu1027, Sept. 27, 1983). The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was brought on January 24, 2017. The succeeding intervenor acquired the claim from the Plaintiff on June 30, 2016, and notified the transfer thereof on September 28, 2016. Thus, the application for intervention by succession in this case is unlawful as it does not themselves lack the requirements.

2. Determination on the grounds of claim against the Defendants

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Defendant Adiplomatic Association: Judgment based on the deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(c) Defendant B: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);