1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The request for intervention of an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

3.Annex.

1. Whether an application for intervention by an independent party is lawful;

A. On September 1, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer agreement with Defendant B and the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant B (hereinafter the remainder Defendants) seeking the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate shares listed in Articles 1 and 2 and the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table Nos. 1 and paragraph (2) of the attached Table Nos. 1 and paragraph (3) of the same list of real estate, the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff, based on the transfer agreement entered into with Defendant B, must confirm the validity of the above transfer agreement against the Defendant B and the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff, against the Defendant B and the remainder Defendants, shall participate as an independent party to seek the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect

B. In order to participate in an independent party intervention under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, an independent party intervenor shall make a claim inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim against both parties or one party of the lawsuit to which he/she intends to participate first, and his/her claim may be established by his/her own assertion in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit. The intervention in the prevention of corruption under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is objectively recognized as having an intention to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have an intention to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question and that there is a concern that the intervenor's rights or legal status may be infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da3526, 3533, Apr. 26, 2007; 2009Da42130, Oct. 15, 2009).

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are in the position of a dual buyer seeking the implementation, etc. of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on a separate transfer agreement concluded with Defendant B, the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants based on the respective transfer agreement and the legal relationship between the Intervenor and the Defendants are compatible.

In addition, even if the intervenor's assertion is based on the intervenor's argument, it is attached to the defendant B.