1. The request for intervention of an independent party intervenor in the trial shall be rejected;

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except that the plaintiff, defendant, and intervenor added the following judgments to the corresponding part of the court of first instance, thereby citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the plaintiff's motion for intervention by the independent party, the intervenor asserts that his intent of intervention is an intervention in prevention of harm under the latter part of Article 79 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and sought confirmation on his own ownership by the factory of this case against the plaintiff and the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's motion for intervention did not meet the requirements of participation in prevention of harm and thus, it is unlawful.

In order to establish a participation in the prevention of death, it should be objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intention to harm the third party through the lawsuit in question, and it should be recognized as a result of the lawsuit that the third party's rights or legal status may be infringed.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant of the principal lawsuit of this case are private action with the intention to harm third parties, such as the intervenor, and even if the plaintiff won or loses the plaintiff in this case, the plaintiff does not impede the plaintiff or defendant's confirmation that the factory of this case is owned by the intervenor and there is no possibility that the plaintiff's rights or legal status may be infringed upon by the result of the principal lawsuit of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's application for intervention is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation in prevention of harm.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above main defense is justified.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) The defendant did not take over the factory of this case from the non-party F, and thus the above F shall pay the plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 per month.