1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2.The independent Party’s claims extended by this Court shall include the claims of the independent Party’s intervenors.

1. The scope of this court’s trial under Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act is the form of litigation in which the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the independent party resolve without inconsistency in the dispute between the two parties regarding the same legal relationship in a single litigation procedure. In a case where an independent party intervention is deemed lawful and a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the independent party is rendered on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the said three parties, a final and conclusive judgment shall be rendered on the title holder of the judgment, thereby rendering a final and conclusive conclusion between the above three parties. In a case where one party appeals on the merits, the final

In such cases, the object of the appellate court's trial is limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who actually filed the appeal, but the scope of the trial should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion between the above three parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312 Decided November 13, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, and 86580 Decided October 26, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit held by the deceased against the Defendant as the heir of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On the other hand, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) asserted that the lease deposit is agreed to be paid to the intervenors when the Deceased and the Defendant died between the Deceased and the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in the instant case.

Therefore, the first instance court accepted the intervenor's claim and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and only the plaintiff appealed.

According to the above legal principles, it is evident that the confirmation of the judgment of the first instance was interrupted, and that the whole of the case was effective.

Furthermore, the subject of the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case is related.