The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. First, we examine whether the instant appeal is legitimate.

A. In an administrative litigation case, even where a participant’s participation does not constitute a third party’s participation as provided by Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, such participation may be deemed as a co-litigation assistance under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act, in light of the nature of the administrative litigation, such as the effect of the judgment on the participant, etc.

Article 67(1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the intervention of a co-litigation under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act, namely, in the case where the subject matter of a lawsuit is to be jointly determined to all co-litigants, the litigation by either of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefit of all the co-litigants. Thus, the litigation by the intervenor shall only be effective for the benefit of all the co-litigants, and it shall not be effective for the benefit of all the co-litigants, and it shall not be disadvantageous to all the co-litigants. Thus, in the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Nu35, Jul. 28, 1970; 201Du13729, Mar. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, when a party raises an objection against a motion for intervention pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act, the court of the lawsuit shall decide whether to allow the intervention, but where the party has presented an objection without filing an objection, or made a statement during the preparatory date for pleading, the court of the lawsuit shall lose the right to file an objection (Articles 73(1) and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act). The court of the lawsuit may continue to conduct litigation without a decision on permission for intervention by the court of the lawsuit (Articles 73(1

B. According to the records, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) filed an application for intervention on June 18, 2014 during the lawsuit of this case with the court of first instance, and on the same day, the court of first instance send to the Plaintiff a written request for submission of the Intervenor’s argument regarding the Intervenor’s application for intervention. The following day is the Plaintiff.