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

2.In accordance with reduction and addition of claims in the trial.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

The "Defendant" shall be deleted from 3 pages 5 and 6.

At the bottom of the six pages, " August 31, 2008" shall be changed to " March 31, 2008".

7. The 7th page "Ghodio" of the 7th page shall be read as "Ghodio dio dio dio dio."

At the bottom of 7 to 3-4, “The cancellation of the existing sales contract of this case” shall be deleted.

The 8th 6th 2nd 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2008, respectively, shall be “Defendant two industries” and “ March 111, 2009.”

9. The 6th page “ from the Plaintiff” is to read “ from Defendant B.A.M.C in accordance with the direction of the New Viennac.

The 10th 6th 6th 8th 6th 8th "National Bank (trustee)" shall each be "National Bank (A-KOF Trustee)".

2. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserts that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking the distribution of residual property against the Plaintiff as the partnership relationship between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff regarding the instant project terminates due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor has won winning judgment. As such, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserts that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor

In order to intervene in a lawsuit to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, the parties must have an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit concerned, and the term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact an economic or emotional interest (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da12796, Jul. 9, 199). The mere fact that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is inside is concerned does not constitute a legal interest required as a requirement for participation.

The Plaintiff’s motion to intervene in the instant case is unlawful.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff 1 is the project operator of this case.