1. The defendant's assistant intervenor's motion to intervene shall be dismissed;

2.(a)

An independent party intervenor among the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. According to the proviso of Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the application for intervention by the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, in a case where the intervention significantly delays the litigation procedures, the intervention in the lawsuit pending in the court may not be allowed.

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the Intervenor applied for intervention as an independent party on December 20, 2017, and the first instance judgment was rendered on July 5, 2018, and the Intervenor appealed on July 9, 2018, and the pleadings were concluded on October 24, 2019. The Defendant Intervenor filed an application for intervention only on October 31, 2019.

In light of the progress of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s motion to intervene in the instant lawsuit constitutes a case where the instant lawsuit procedure significantly delays, and thus, it is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for participation.

2. The scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a single final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance court shall be interrupted 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). The Plaintiff sought against the Defendant as the principal lawsuit the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate, and the Intervenor as an independent party intervention.