1.The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor raised by this Court shall be rejected;

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as stated in the following 2; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attachment thereof, but excluding the part on March 2, 200) except for adding judgment as stated in paragraph (3); and (c) thus, it is acceptable

2. The amended portion is from the last 3 to the first 4th parallel (including a number) “(including a number, if any, but not otherwise specified; hereinafter the same shall apply)”.

4 The following shall be added between 4 pages 1 and 2:

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination as to the application for intervention

A. Determination as to the legitimacy of an independent party intervention pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, is intended to resolve in a lump sum without contradiction between the two parties by a single judgment and a third party asserting that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right when a lawsuit is pending between the other parties, or that his/her rights are infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit. As such, among the independent party intervention, the intervention in the right may be allowed in cases where the plaintiff's claim and the independent party intervenor's claim cannot be deemed incompatible with the assertion. The intervention in the prevention of corruption may be permitted where the plaintiff and the defendant are objectively deemed to have infringed on the rights of the independent party intervenor through a lawsuit and it is deemed that the right or legal status of the independent party intervenor is likely to be infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da221777, 221784, Apr. 26, 2017).