1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff and the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff ex officio is lawful, and the plaintiff sought the payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant in the first instance court, but the claim was dismissed. Since the defendant won the whole of the plaintiff in the first instance court, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. Whether an appeal filed by the defendant against the succeeding intervenor is lawful

(a) Facts subsequent to the recognition are significant or obvious in records in this court:

1) On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and on November 21, 2012, a duplicate of the complaint and the manual were served on the Defendant. 2) On December 13, 2012, the Defendant submitted a preparatory document to the court of first instance that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

3) On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim. The said written application was served on the Defendant on February 4, 2013. (4) On May 15, 2013, the court of first instance sent the Defendant a first notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant on May 15, 2013. On May 21, 2013, the said notice was served on the Defendant, but the Defendant was absent on the said date for pleading.

5) On June 4, 2013, a successor intervenor submitted an application for succession to the court of first instance to the court of first instance. On June 7, 2013, the court of first instance sent the application for succession to the defendant on June 7, 2013, but was ordered to serve on June 19, 2013 as the director was not known. 6) On June 13, 2013, the court of first instance sent the notice to the defendant on June 13, 2013, but was not served as the addressee’s unknown.

The defendant was absent on the second day for pleading.

7) On August 20, 2013, the court of first instance sent a notice of the third date for pleading to the Defendant on August 20, 2013, but the notice was not served due to the unknown whereabouts of the director, and thus, was sent on August 29, 2013. The Defendant was absent on the third date for pleading. 8) The court of first instance issued the notice to the Defendant on October 1, 2013, but did not serve the notice on the fourth date for pleading on which the recipient was unknown

The court of first instance shall on October 29, 2013.