1. The supplementary participation of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is permitted.

2. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. Determination as to whether the Intervenor’s supplementary participation and appeal are lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not accept the decision of the court of first instance, but filed the appeal of this case against the defendant's will. Thus, the intervenor's supplementary participation and appeal are illegal or invalid.

B. A judgment 1) Co-litigation refers to a intervention made by a third party in a case where the judgment becomes effective against a third party (an intervenor) (Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the judgment of the lawsuit of this case brought by the Plaintiff to the purport that the invalidation or invalidation of the election of this case is sought does not extend to an intervenor. As such, an intervenor’s application for co-litigation intervention does not meet the requirements, and thus is unlawful. However, the intervenor has a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit of this case, and the above application contains an application for intervention, and thus, the intervenor’s application for intervention is accepted by the intervenor (a separate decision does not dismiss the application

(2) Although only the intervenor filed the instant appeal and the fact that the defendant did not separately appeal is apparent on the record, the intervenor can act in his/her own name as necessary for the favor of the intervenor, such as application for evidence, and filing an appeal, unless it does not conflict with the intention of the intervenor clearly and actively. Thus, there is no evidence suggesting that the intervenor’s appeal in this case goes against the defendant’s obvious and active intent, such as the defendant waived his/her right to appeal against the judgment of the first instance. Thus, even if the defendant did not appeal without the appeal, it is difficult to view that the intervenor’s procedural act constitutes “a case against the intervenor’s procedural act” under Article 76(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.