1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding “claim against Defendant B and C” in Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment.

1. When an independent party participation is deemed lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and a judgment on the merits is rendered on the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered by rendering a single final judgment with the name of the said three parties as to the lawsuit between the said three parties. In a case where one party appeals on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance shall be interrupted by the final judgment of the said three parties, and the entire case shall take effect.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties

(1) The Defendants and D, who leased each of the above real estate to the Defendants and D, are the owners or lien holders of the first through third real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 7136, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). The Plaintiff asserted that each of the above real estate lease agreements was terminated. The Defendants and D filed a claim for the delivery of the first through 3 real estate and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent (hereinafter “rent, etc.”) against the Defendants and D. The Intervenor asserted that he/she himself/herself is the owner of the first through 3 real estate, and sought confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s right of retention against the Defendants and D. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she is the owner of the fourth real estate, and claimed that it is the owner of the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the real estate and confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s claim for additional right of retention.

The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s respective claims against Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant E, and added the Intervenor’s application for intervention.