1. The application for participation of an independent party intervenor at the trial of the political party shall be dismissed in all;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3...

Basic Facts

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or modification as follows. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2: “ from the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)” in Part 7 is dismissed as “from the Independent Party Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)”, and the “Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor” in the 2nd 7th 7th 7th 6th 8th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th

The first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014, and then rendered a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014 and then rendered a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2014Na29218). The first instance court rendered a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014, and the appeal was dismissed and the said judgment became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court 2014Na29218).

Part 6 "Ground for recognition" is added to "Evidence 9, 11, 18, 4 through 9" column.

In order for an independent party intervenor to participate in the intervention of the principal claim under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act among the intervention of an independent party, an independent party intervenor shall make a claim that is incompatible with the plaintiff's claim of the principal claim against both parties or one of the other parties of the lawsuit to be participated first, and the claim shall be established by his own assertion in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit. The intervention in the prevention of corruption under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is objectively recognized as having an intention to prejudice the intervenor through the lawsuit, and it is permitted in a case where the plaintiff and the defendant have objectively recognized as having an intention to prejudice the intervenor's right or legal status as a result of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da42130, 42147, 42154, 42161, Oct. 15, 209).