1. The independent party intervenor's appeal against the plaintiff and the defendant is all dismissed;

2. The appeal costs.

1. As to the instant case, the reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) from the 9th sentence of the first instance judgment to the 10th sentence of the said judgment; and (b) from the 19th sentence of the said judgment to the 10th sentence of the said judgment, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (c) therefore, (d) it is

In the instant case, the Plaintiff sought performance of the procedure of disposal of each of the instant real estate against the Defendant based on the right to claim ownership transfer registration following the completion of the trust agreement under Article 25(1) and (2) of the instant trust agreement and the right to claim ownership transfer registration under Article 18(1)1 of the instant trust agreement and Article 2(3) of the Special Agreement, while the Intervenor seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff had the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Defendant based on the right to claim ownership transfer registration following the termination of the trust agreement under Article 25(1) and (2) of the instant trust agreement.

Therefore, it is clear that the intervenor itself does not assert that the right to claim the performance of the disposition procedure that the plaintiff seeks as the principal lawsuit is his/her own right.

Ultimately, the Intervenor’s motion for intervention does not claim that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or may be compatible with the principal claim, and thus does not meet the requirements for intervention in the principal claim.

In addition, there is no objective evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in this case, and the intervenor's application did not meet the requirements for participation in the prevention of death.

Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention by independent party is unlawful.

2. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Intervenor’s application for intervention of the independent party is justifiable. Thus, all of the Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.