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

A. The Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, sought a judgment against the Defendants, such as the entries in the purport of the principal lawsuit.

As an independent party intervention, the intervenor asserted that the person entitled to receive the share amount to be paid by the Defendants is the intervenor, and with respect to the plaintiff, the intervenor sought confirmation that the plaintiff has the right to receive the share amount, and with respect to the defendants, the above share amount and damages for delay

The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, and rendered a judgment dismissing all of the Intervenor’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and only the Intervenor appealed against this judgment.

(B) The Plaintiff appealed only against the Defendants, and then withdrawn the appeal by this court, and the incidental appeal filed by the Defendants to this court was invalidated due to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s appeal).

Meanwhile, an independent party intervention lawsuit pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act is a form of litigation in which the plaintiff, defendant, and intervenor resolve without contradiction in a single litigation proceeding, in which the intervention of an independent party is lawful, and when an independent party intervention is deemed to render a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the above three parties, and a single final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the above three parties, thereby making a joint and conclusive conclusion between the above three parties. In the event one of the parties appealed on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance shall be interrupted, and the whole

In such cases, the subject matter of the appellate trial is limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of the appeal by the person who actually filed the appeal, but the scope of the trial shall be determined in consideration of the need for the unity of the conclusion between the above three parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, 86580, Oct. 26, 2007), and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.