1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.

Judgment on the plaintiffs' defense of this case

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the intervenor's application for intervention by an independent party (hereinafter referred to as "application for intervention") was dismissed after the closing of the first instance trial proceedings. Since the plaintiffs and the defendant did not appeal and the judgment in favor of all the plaintiffs on the merits became final and conclusive, it is unlawful to file an appeal after the judgment on the merits became final and conclusive.

B. According to Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when rendering a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant and the intervenor, it is not allowed to render a judgment only on the part of the above three parties, and it is not allowed to make a judgment only on the part of the above parties, in a case where Article 67 applies mutatis mutandis under Article 67(2) and only the intervenor appealed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an independent party lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3776, 37783, Dec. 14, 2007). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the health department of this case: although the defendant submitted a waiver of appeal to the judgment of the first instance court in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant waived the appeal; and the defendant was dismissed on the ground that the application for intervention by the intervenor was unlawful.

Even if the intervenor has lodged an appeal within the period of appeal granted to him, the principal lawsuit is also dismissed, and the whole case is transferred to the court. Therefore, the intervenor's filing of an appeal in this case cannot be deemed unlawful.

The plaintiffs' defense of this case is without merit.

An intervenor as to the legitimacy of the application for intervention filed on January 30, 2019, which was after December 7, 2018, which was the date of the closing of argument in the first instance court, and the first instance court dismissed the application for intervention on the ground that it was unlawful.