1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for participation by the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor shall be dismissed.

3. Appeal.

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention is legitimate

A. The summary of the grounds for intervention is that the Plaintiff’s husband is well aware of this case as the Plaintiff’s husband, and thus, the Plaintiff’s husband wants to participate in this case in order to assist the Plaintiff.

B. Generally, in order to intervene in an assistance to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, an interest in the outcome of the relevant lawsuit must be interested. The term “interest” refers to a legal interest rather than an interest in the economy or appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da12796, Jul. 9, 199). A case where res judicata or executory power of a judgment on the relevant lawsuit is naturally granted, or where a legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined, at least on the premise of the relevant judgment, even if the effect of the judgment does not directly affect the relevant lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). The reason alleged by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are not sufficient to deem the outcome of the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as having any legal effect on the legal status of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and no other evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had any legal interest other than de facto economic disadvantage on the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

Ultimately, the application filed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for intervention is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) On August 27, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to jointly purchase the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land and above ground E-building from F, the owner of the land, and concluded a real estate sales contract in “H real estate” operated by G. In the process of concluding a contract, the Plaintiff left the Plaintiff’s seal, etc. necessary in relation to the purchase of real estate to the Defendant.