1. The supplementary intervenor does not allow the participation of the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. As a result of an intervention; and

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s motion for intervention by the Intervenor

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor engaged in the instant monetary transaction with the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor has a legal interest in the instant claim.

B. In order to intervene in a case to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there must be an interest in the outcome of the relevant lawsuit. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, which refers to a case where the judgment is res judicata or executory power of the relevant lawsuit, or where the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit, it refers to a case where the legal status of a person who intends to participate in a lawsuit is determined on the premise of the judgment at least

(2) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor directly made the instant monetary transaction with the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly made the instant monetary transaction with the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007), and even if the Plaintiff’s Intervenor consistently asserted the instant monetary transaction with the Defendant through the Plaintiff, the parties to the instant monetary transaction are deemed to have made a direct monetary transaction with the Defendant, and even if the Plaintiff lost the lawsuit in this case, the disadvantage that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was receiving is merely a de facto and economic disadvantage. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the legal status

Therefore, the application filed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for intervention is unlawful as there are no grounds for intervention.

2. Quotation of judgments of the first instance.