1. The plaintiff's supplementary intervenor's application for participation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. Basic facts

A. B, on February 21, 2012, issued to C a promissory note (hereinafter “instant Promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 1.2 billion and due date as of February 28, 2012, and, on the same day, a notary public delayed the payment of the instant Promissory Notes under Articles 278 and 278 of 2012 at the law firm’s freedom, he/she drafted a notarial deed recognizing that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. C filed an application for a compulsory auction (U.S. Branch BranchF) with respect to the instant notarial deed with the title of execution against the amount of 36,628 square meters of land D, Sung-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, as the title of execution, and on May 31, 2013, the total amount of KRW 502,30,048 calculated by subtracting the execution cost, etc. out of KRW 511,817,048 of the proceeds from the said auction procedure was distributed to C.

C. On May 11, 2012, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 41,743,871 out of the dividend claim among the proceeds from the sale of the said compulsory auction case that C and C were against the Republic of Korea by the obligor C and C, the third obligor of the Republic of Korea. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 43,309,633 among the claims owned by the Notarial Deed against C and C as the obligor C and the third obligor, as the obligor C and the third obligor B, and as to KRW 43,309,633 among the claims owned by the Notarial Deed of this case.

The Defendant received KRW 41,743,871 out of the dividend amount of KRW 502,30,048, based on the seizure collection order (No. 201, 201, 201, 201, 300,000,000).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 7 through 10, 14 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion intervenor, as the Plaintiff’s general secretary, has practically dealt with all the process of issuing the Promissory Notes, and thus, it is well aware of the instant case. In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s assertion Intervenor’s fault against the Plaintiff, such as breach of trust against the Plaintiff.