The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, around January 2008, leased the area of No. 7 E 2,042 square meters of the D building of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from F, the owner of the building, and carried on a bath business with the trade name “G private house” from January 20, 2008.

B. The Defendant was a superstore manager under the Distribution Industry Development Act for D buildings.

C. From June 19, 2018 to March 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant totaling KRW 96,634,953 of the management expenses incurred in relation to the use of the said subparagraph’s exclusive ownership.

[Ground of recognition] 1, 2, and 13 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13 (including a branch number if any)

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of participation by an independent party

A. Around April 2018, a summary of the reasons for participation by an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) was rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming service costs against the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

An intervenor was issued a seizure and collection order on the management expense claim against the plaintiff, which the defendant had against the plaintiff as the executive title of the above judgment.

However, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the obligation of this case without knowledge of the intervenor, and the defendant also did not notify this fact to the intervenor. Since the plaintiff and the defendant conspired with the plaintiff to terminate that there is no management expense claim against the plaintiff and thus it is likely to prejudice the interests of the intervenor, the plaintiff's application for intervention is filed as stated in the purport of the claim to prevent the

B. Among the participation by an independent party, participation in the claim of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the independent party's claim are allowed if it can be seen that the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit and the independent party's claim are not compatible with the claim itself, and the participation in the prevention of corruption has the intent to prejudice the independent party's intervenor through the lawsuit concerned.