1. The lawsuit by an independent party shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant D is an independent party intervenor from the Plaintiff 40,200.

1. Whether the lawsuit filed by an independent party to participate is legitimate (Rejection of law);

A. The Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor leased the instant apartment from the Plaintiff in KRW 50,000,000, and the lease contract was terminated thereafter.

Accordingly, the Intervenor, as a lawsuit filed by the independent party to the instant case, sought payment of KRW 40,200,000 in the remainder of the lease deposit (= KRW 50,000 in the lease deposit - KRW 9,800,000 in the aggregate of the overdue rent from April 3, 2018 to June 3, 2019 (= KRW 700,000 in the monthly rent x 14 months) and damages for delay.

B. An independent party intervention as stipulated in Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a lawsuit is pending between others, intends to make a temporary resolution without inconsistency between the two parties by a single judgment, by participating in the lawsuit as a party by a third party who claims that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or that his right is infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.

Therefore, during the intervention by an independent party, the intervention in the right claim may be allowed only when the plaintiff's principal claim and the intervenor's claim are deemed to be incompatible with the assertion itself. The intervention in the prevention of harm may be allowed in cases where the plaintiff and the defendant are objectively acknowledged to have an intent to infringe the intervenor's rights through a lawsuit and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant are likely to infringe on the intervenor's rights or legal status

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da221777, 221784, Apr. 26, 2017). The Intervenor’s claim is a claim against the Plaintiff for the balance of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendant D is a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and the cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case. The Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund seek the declaration of consent against the cancellation.