임대보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's motion to intervene in the case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. On May 15, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit deposit amounting to KRW 30 million for the building of Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and one parcel of land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”), KRW 2 million for the rent month, and KRW 1 million for the rent period, and paid the above lease deposit to the Defendant around that time. The period of the instant lease agreement was extended by an agreement between the Defendant and the original Defendant on April 3, 2008. The Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant store to the Defendant around that time was terminated by an agreement between the original Defendant and the Defendant on April 3, 2008. It can be recognized by taking account of the following: there is no dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of pleadings as to the statement in subparagraphs 1 and 3.
2. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion that management of the security deposit between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the husband, was well aware of the instant case. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor would participate in the instant lawsuit in favor of the Plaintiff is concerned with the outcome of the relevant lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that, in order to assist either party in a specific litigation case, there is an interest in the relevant lawsuit. The interest here refers to the legal interest rather than an economic or emotional interest but rather a legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da26924, Sept. 8, 2000). Thus, the foregoing ground asserted by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor cannot be deemed as having a legal relationship with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor directly with the instant judgment or on the premise of the instant judgment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be deemed as having any legal interest in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s participation requirement, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff.