A. At the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s ground for the principal claim was the Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendant in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Intervenor as the preserved claim. The Intervenor’s ground for the Intervenor’s independent party participation claim against the Defendant was to confirm that there was no claim against the Intervenor regarding the Plaintiff’s independent party participation, and the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendant on the ground that there was no preserved claim, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant by accepting the Plaintiff’s entire claim against the Plaintiff among the Intervenor’s independent party participation lawsuit.

Accordingly, only the intervenor filed an appeal against the part of the intervenor's lawsuit against the defendant in the first instance judgment against the intervenor.

B. 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 an independent party intervenor resolve without contradiction in a single litigation proceeding with respect to the same legal relationship. In a case where an independent party intervention is deemed lawful and a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor is rendered on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment with the above three parties as the title holder of the judgment should be rendered, thereby rendering a final judgment to the above three parties. In a case where one party appeals on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance is interrupted, and the entire case becomes effective.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate trial is the person who actually filed an appeal.