1. The supplementary intervenor does not allow the participation of the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff out of the appeal costs.

1. An interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in order to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case for the determination of whether to grant the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s participation. The term “interest” refers to a legal interest rather than an economic or emotional interest. This refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question is granted, or even if the judgment in question is not directly effective, it refers to a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in the lawsuit is determined at least on the premise of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007). The circumstance or evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is insufficient to recognize this point, and thus, the Plaintiff’s participation is denied.

2. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: each "witness witness" of the 4th and 8th and 12th of the 4th judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as "witness witness of the court of first instance"; and the "No. 9" shall be added to "the purport of the entire pleading" of the 11th judgment; and the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment at the court of first instance as follows, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. As examined in the above cited part of the judgment added, D cannot be deemed to have established the Defendant’s liability for tort or obligation to return unjust enrichment with respect to the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 350,000,000 paid to the Defendant, and even according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the Defendant to the trial with the witness F of the first instance trial up to the trial, the above cited part’s factual recognition or judgment was followed, or the Plaintiff embezzled the said money jointly with D, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff at the trial.