2. The costs of lawsuit resulting from the intervention in the co-litigation shall be.

A. The intervention in a co-litigation shall be permitted in cases where the subject matter of the lawsuit ought to be confirmed jointly with a party and a third party (the co-litigants) (Article 83(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even based on the assertion itself by an intervenor of the Plaintiff co-litigation (hereinafter “participating”), it is difficult to view that the subject matter of the lawsuit ought to be determined uniformly with the Plaintiff and the intervenor, and thus, the Intervenor’s application for intervention in the co-litigation is unlawful on account of its lack of the requirements under

B. Meanwhile, the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2020Na1782 against the Defendant became final and conclusive on September 18, 2020 as a substitute for conciliation.

C. Furthermore, we examine whether the application for intervention in the instant co-litigation is legitimate as an independent lawsuit against the Plaintiff or the Defendant.

A claim in a lawsuit is limited to specific rights or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). If the content of a claim is not a claim in respect of property or social relationship, there is no benefit in the protection of rights as to the legal relationship to bring a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da756, Oct. 27, 1992). In light of the purport of the Intervenor’s application for intervention in a lawsuit, the application for intervention in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in the lawsuit (profit in the protection of rights).

2. As such, the application for intervention in the instant co-litigation is a case in which the defects cannot be corrected, and thus, the application for intervention in the instant co-litigation cannot be dismissed by a judgment without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.