1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on April 4, 2018 as the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.

2. After filing an application for designation of the date.

1. Article 76(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the intervenor’s procedural acts are not effective in cases where the intervenor’s procedural acts are contrary to the intervenor’s procedural acts.

The purport of the above provision is to take precedence over the intent of the original party in cases where the procedural acts of the original party and the procedural acts of the supplementary intervenor are contrary

Therefore, the original party may perform an act contrary to the intervenor's act, and accordingly, waive or withdraw the appeal filed by the supplementary intervenor.

According to the records on October 14, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da38168, Oct. 14, 2010). 2. Upon the judgment of the first instance court accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant renounced the appeal, and the Intervenor appealed within the period of appeal. The Defendant, who was the original party, voluntarily withdrawn the above appeal on April 4, 2018, and the Defendant’s intent to withdraw the instant appeal is evident.

According to the legal principles under paragraph (1), if the intent between the supplementary intervenor and the original party has been violated, the intent of the defendant as the original party shall prevail.

3. If so, the instant lawsuit was duly concluded upon the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal on April 4, 2018, and the Defendant’s motion to designate the date for the Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion was groundless, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the Defendant’s motion to designate the date for the Defendant’s