1. Upon the claim of the conjunctive main claim added at the trial, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be 2,127,400.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The following facts are apparent in the process of the lawsuit.

1) The Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to nonperformance and penalty against the Defendant (a claim for the main claim before extension in the trial; hereinafter “claim for the main claim of the first instance trial”) is called “claim for the main claim of the instant main claim.”

The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff. The Intervenor claimed the instant counterclaim against the Plaintiff for damages arising from nonperformance. The Intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the collection amount. 2) The first instance court dismissed the part corresponding to the amount of the Intervenor’s claim among the Plaintiff’s claims in the first instance court’s principal lawsuit, dismissed the remainder, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim claim and the Intervenor’s claim was entirely dismissed.

3) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, only the Plaintiff appealed on the claim of the principal lawsuit in the first instance court, and the Defendant and the Intervenor did not file an appeal or incidental appeal. (b) The court of first instance dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim, and the Defendant did not file an appeal. Accordingly, this part is excluded from the subject of the judgment of this court.

2) We examine the part concerning the Intervenor’s claim in the first instance judgment. Pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when rendering a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the original Defendant and the Intervenor, it is not permitted to make a judgment only on the part of the said three parties, but to make a judgment only on the part of the said parties. In a case where Article 67(2) applies mutatis mutandis to the case where only the Plaintiff appealed against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor in an independent party intervention lawsuit as a result of the application mutatis mutandis of Article 67, the final judgment is interrupted and the entire case becomes effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da577, Dec. 8, 1981; 2007Da3776, 3783, Dec. 14, 2007).