2. The application for participation by the independent party intervenor of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit;

A. On May 23, 2018, Suwon District Court: (a) prepared the instant dividend table at the instant auction procedure on May 23, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant dividends”). (b)

On May 23, 2018, the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor appeared on the date of distribution and raised objections to the distribution against the defendant.

C. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the independent party intervenor applied for intervention on October 30, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The absence of dispute or significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination on the application for intervention by an independent party, as to the legitimacy of the application for intervention by the independent party.

An independent party participation is permitted only when the plaintiff's principal claim and the intervenor's claim are deemed to be incompatible with the plaintiff's claim. An independent party participation is allowed only when it is objectively acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question and that the plaintiff and the defendant are likely to infringe the plaintiff's rights or legal status as a result of the lawsuit in question.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). In relation to the Plaintiff’s filing of an objection against the Defendant, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff filed an application for intervention to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim should be accepted.

This does not correspond to not only a right holder participation, but also a right holder participation.

Even though the intervenor was served on November 5, 2018 by the court order of correction on November 12, 2018, the intervenor did not make an amendment within seven days of the designated date, to the effect that “the purport of the claim for intervention by the independent party is clearly specified in accordance with the application for intervention.”

Therefore, the Intervenor's application for intervention is inappropriate, and its amendment is impossible according to the closing of argument in the principal suit.