1. The motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. The following facts are remarkable in this Court:

On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with Jeju District Court 2014Ra802 for the performance of a loan obligation with the Defendant, and the Defendant’s Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the performance of a joint and several surety obligation. The Plaintiff’s application for lawsuit and the Defendant’s objection filed against the Defendant to the litigation procedure (No. 2014da8386).

B. On July 8, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the purport that “the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant jointly and severally paid the Plaintiff the loan obligation amounting to KRW 30 million and delay damages thereon,” and the original judgment is served on the Defendant on July 12, 2016, and the same year.

8. 20. The above judgment became final and conclusive upon being served on the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

C. On October 12, 2016, the Defendant’s Intervenor filed an application for intervention on behalf of the Defendant with this court, and filed an appeal for the Defendant (satisfy).

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case

A. A. A third party who has an interest in the result of a lawsuit seeking intervention may participate in the lawsuit pending in order to assist either party (Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act). In this case, “interest in the result of a lawsuit” is a legal interest, not simple and economic interest, and is recognized when the legal status of the supplementary intervenor is directly affected by the failure of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42, Feb. 23, 1982). However, the supplementary intervenor was seen earlier that the judgment ordering the payment of the loan obligation guaranteed and guaranteed by the plaintiff as a co-defendant of the first instance trial became final and conclusive. Even if the plaintiff’s claim is excluded in the lawsuit of this case filed for the defendant, the supplementary intervenor’s legal status pursuant to the above final and conclusive judgment shall be excluded.