The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order for an independent party intervention under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, an independent party intervenor must first make a claim incompatible with a plaintiff's claim against both parties to the lawsuit to be participated or one of the other parties to the lawsuit, and the claim must have the benefit of the lawsuit, as well as can be established by the assertion itself. The latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, objectively and objectively and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, and that the plaintiff's right or legal status may be infringed upon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da42130, 4214, 42154, 42161). The court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for the lawsuit of this case did not meet the requirements for the removal of the plaintiff's right under Article 18(1)1 and Article 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and that part of the plaintiff's claim for removal of the trust agreement and its execution of this case is unlawful.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is a ground for appeal.