1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 18,650,000 won to the plaintiff and its related expenses on March 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2010, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) leased from the Defendant the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 250,000,000,000,000 from March 26, 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). (b)

The Deceased died on June 24, 2010, and the Plaintiff, a child, inherited the Deceased solely.

C. On July 5, 2010, the intervenor sent a notice to the defendant on July 5, 2010 that "the intervenor is a creditor who lent money to the deceased, and the deceased transferred the right under the instant lease agreement to the intervenor to secure the intervenor's obligation to the intervenor, so the intervenor paid the lease deposit to the intervenor." The above notice reached the defendant around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, and 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff asserts that the intervention of the independent party in this case is unlawful as the plaintiff's main claim and the intervenor's claim are compatible.

On the other hand, an independent party intervention intends to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or that the third party asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is his right by the result of the lawsuit is a party, and then resolve in a lump sum without contradiction between the two parties by a single judgment, so the intervention in the right claim may be allowed when it can be viewed that the plaintiff's claim and the independent party intervenor's claim are not compatible with the assertion itself, and the intervention in the right claim has the intention to impair the intervenor through the lawsuit concerned.