1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and all Defendant C and D’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, in the scope of the trial of this court, the intervenor rejected the intervenor's application for intervention in the independent party and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the intervenor did not file an appeal within the appeal period, and where only the plaintiff appealed, the part which rejected the above application for intervention in the independent party was already determined separately from the plaintiff's appeal

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da469, 91Da4676 delivered on May 26, 192, etc.). The first instance court rejected the application for intervention of an independent party in the first instance court by asserting that the independent party intervenor E and the Femb association (hereinafter “E,”) in the first instance court constituted an infringement on their rights according to the result of the principal lawsuit, the first instance court rejected the application for intervention of the E and the present church on the ground that the application for intervention of the present church is unlawful. Not only the above applicants but also the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not appeal, and there is no need for the confirmation of conformity with the present church. Thus, the part concerning the application for intervention of the independent party in the first instance court is separated from the remaining parts, and confirmed, and only the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the first instance judgment constitutes the scope of the judgment in this court.

(2) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance as to the part of the motion for intervention by an independent party, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion added at the trial room

A. On May 2005, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion E lent KRW 400 million to K (representative L; hereinafter “K”) as of September 7, 2005. In order to secure this, K used to secure the debtor and collateral security interest on the first real estate owned by it.