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

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

1. The court of first instance dismissed both the plaintiff's claim and the independent party's claim, and the judgment of the court of first instance only appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but the confirmation of the part of the plaintiff's claim was prevented and transferred to this court.

However, as seen below, insofar as the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance on whether the intervenor's claim against the defendant is brought against the defendant is maintained, the conclusion between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor is not necessary to be jointly confirmed. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim is excluded from the scope of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, 86580 Decided October 26, 2007). 2. The facts of recognition

A. The defendant is a company that conducts the business of manufacturing decorations, etc., and the intervenor is a company that conducts artificial fishery, etc., and the plaintiff is the representative of the intervenor.

B. Around October 5, 2015, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) issued a public notice of tender on the terms of a contract to settle the “services production and installation services on the Pison Pison (hereinafter “instant services”) under the condition of ex post facto review with respect to “the instant services” (hereinafter “instant services”).

C. On December 7, 2015, the Defendant participated in the said bidding and entered into a contract with D with the contract amount of KRW 700 million for the instant service, the contract period from December 3, 2015 to April 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

'A participant', covering the plaintiff and the intervenor, is called 'A participant'.

(2) On December 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a separate tax invoice of value-added tax on KRW 30,000,000 (value-added tax) from the Intervenor around January 11, 2016, and paid the said money to the Intervenor.

E. On January 4, 2016, E introduced both the Intervenor, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, following the conclusion of the instant service and the distribution of the price thereof.