The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

An intervenor may conduct procedural acts until a decision not to permit his/her intervention becomes final and conclusive, even where there exists an objection against his/her intervention.

(Article 75(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Meanwhile, since the capacity of the assistant intervenor to perform the litigation is not derived from the original party, but is not the independent authority, it shall be deemed that the assistant intervenor’s capacity to perform the lawsuit is not the independent authority. Thus, separate from the original party, the notice of the date and the service of the document of lawsuit shall be made to the assistant intervenor, and the progress of the date conducted without giving the assistant intervenor an opportunity to

(1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant for revocation of the above corrective measures, etc., and the defendant filed an objection against the application for intervention on the part of the defendant (hereinafter "application for intervention on the part of the defendant) on the first day for pleading on the ground that the defendant did not have any legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in this case (hereinafter "the decision in this case"), and the court below rejected the application for intervention on the part of the defendant for intervention on the ground that the defendant did not have any legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in this case (hereinafter "the decision in this case") and the defendant did not deliver a notice to the defendant as to the defendant's multi-purpose satellite bidding to the defendant. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for revocation of the above corrective measures, etc.