1. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation in the Intervenor’s Intervenor is dismissed.

2. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. The Intervenor joining the Defendant asserts that, if the Defendants lost in the instant lawsuit, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff would bring a civil and criminal lawsuit against the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Defendant has a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

In order to participate in a case to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there shall be an interest in the result of the relevant lawsuit, and the interest here refers to the legal interest not in fact, economic or emotional interest, but in fact, it shall not directly affect the effect of the judgment of the relevant lawsuit where res judicata or executory power is granted, or where the judgment of the relevant lawsuit

Even if the judgment is based on the legal status of the person who intends to participate in the assistance, it refers to the case in which the legal status is determined.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007). The grounds asserted by the Defendant joining the Defendant cannot be deemed as having a legal interest, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it otherwise.

The application for intervention in assistance shall be dismissed on the grounds that there are no reasons.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following judgment is added.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. As seen in the above cited part of the additional determination, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendants an agreed amount in accordance with the instant payment guarantee letter.

The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff is liable for damages due to embezzlement, fraud, or breach of a contract of transfer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and it is deemed that Defendant C, D, and F agreed to transfer the ownership of each motor vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet of the judgment of the first instance to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds for appeal