1. The request for intervention of an independent party intervenor raised in the trial shall be rejected;

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the court’s determination on the legitimacy of participation by an independent party raised in the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment at the court of first instance, and thus, (b) the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to adding ex officio judgment on the legitimacy of participation by the independent party.

2. Judgment ex officio on the legitimacy of intervention by the independent party

A. On the part of the Plaintiff’s participation against the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought revocation and reinstatement of the agreement on the division of inherited property between the Defendant and B as the obligee B’s fraudulent act. On the part of the Intervenor, the Intervenor also sought revocation and reinstatement of the agreement on the division of inherited property between the Defendant and B as the obligee as well as the Intervenor as the obligee B’s creditor.

B. Determination 1) In a participation by an independent party, where the subject matter of the lawsuit is wholly or partially asserted that the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Intervenor’s claim are his/her own right, it may be allowed if it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim and the Intervenor’s claim are not compatible with the assertion itself. (2) The fact that the Plaintiff is the obligee B and the fact that the Defendant is the obligee B is a creditor is factually incompatible; and (2) each obligee meeting the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation may seek revocation of the obligor’s disposal of property as his/her own right and seek restitution thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da28114, Aug. 20, 2014). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act and the Intervenor’s claim for restitution

3) Accordingly, the request for intervention by the independent party of this case

It is unlawful on account of its lack of case.

3. The conclusion is that the intervenor's independent party intervention raised in the trial is inappropriate, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate.