1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation regarding the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgment as to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s allegation that there is no legitimate interest to repay the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The addition;

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a loan agreement with the redevelopment association of this case and the intervenor who is the contractor, the Defendant used the loan for moving expenses to D, who is a member of the redevelopment association of this case, but there was no agreement between the intervenor and the defendant to bear the joint and several liability as to D’s above loan obligations.

Even if a joint and several guarantee agreement was concluded between the defendant and the intervenor, the redevelopment association of this case, which implements the rearrangement project pursuant to Article 24 (3) 2 and 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of the union members in order to enter into a monetary loan agreement. Thus, the agreement on moving allowance loan between the redevelopment association of this case and the defendant is null and void, and as long as the moving allowance loan agreement is null and void, the joint and several guarantee agreement between the defendant and

As long as the joint and several guarantee agreement between the defendant and the intervenor cannot be acknowledged, the intervenor does not constitute a person who has legitimate interest in repaying D’s obligation pursuant to Article 481 of the Civil Act, and merely merely a person who has voluntarily performed an obligation, and as long as he/she did not meet the requisite for counterclaim under Article 480(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, and Articles 450 through 452 of the Civil Act, the intervenor

B. According to the purport of subparagraph 2 and the entire pleadings by the Defendant, the Intervenor, and the redevelopment partnership of this case, as to November 30, 2006, the Defendant raised objection.