1. The plaintiff's supplementary intervenor's application for participation shall be dismissed.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone” under Section 2, Section 12, of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be read as “the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance and the court of appeal,” and the judgment on the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor’s supplementary intervenor’s request for intervention at the court of first instance shall be cited as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional explanation. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

【Additional Decision-Making Matters】 The Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserts that there was an interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit because the Plaintiff, even though there was no relationship with Defendant B, Co., Ltd., or the Plaintiff, the representative director thereof, was transferred D shares from the Plaintiff as if they were transferred. As such, the Plaintiff acquired F a total sum of 50 million won of the face value of the Plaintiff’s issuance of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, which was paid to F as machine down payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor caused enormous damages, such as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s failure to recover the said Promissory Notes so far, thereby becoming a bad credit holder.

However, in order to intervene in a specific litigation case in order to assist one of the parties, there must be an interest in the outcome of the relevant lawsuit. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case in which res judicata effect or executory power of the relevant judgment is naturally obtained, or even if the relevant judgment does not directly affect the validity of the relevant lawsuit, it refers to a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined at least on the premise of such judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007).