1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the independent party intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. This part of the judgment of this court is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim of KRW 200 million out of the agreed amount under the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”) was taken over from the Nonparty. Of the remainder of the agreed amount of KRW 260,000,000, the Nonparty deducteds both the construction cost, loan interest, etc. that the Nonparty had already received from the Defendant and the construction cost, loan interest, etc. that the Nonparty should bear from the Defendant, 80,288,872.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money out of the above transfer money to the plaintiff.

B. On June 27, 2012, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “the intervenor”) acquired a claim of KRW 150,000,000 out of the agreed amount of the instant contract from D around June 27, 2012 prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the said claim, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s double acquisition of the said claim from the Nonparty constitutes an act of false acquisition for the purpose of a litigation trust, which is null and void, and is prejudicial to the Intervenor.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above transfer money and the delay damages to the intervenor.

C. Defendant’s assertion 1) Since the intervenor notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims regarding the assignment of claims by the intervenor’s assertion or did not obtain the Defendant’s consent, the intervenor cannot oppose the Defendant. 2) The other party who entered into a construction contract for the construction work of several lots of land, such as the F in terms of harmony, with the Defendant, is not the Nonparty, but the gold Sea Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “gold Sea Construction”).

The construction of the above factory site was the gold Sea Construction. Accordingly, the Nonparty did not have any claim against the Defendant with respect to the construction of the above factory site, so the Plaintiff merely acquired the claim that did not exist from the Nonparty.