1. The application for intervention of an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The participation by an independent party; and

1. An independent party intervenor who was employed by the Plaintiff as an employee of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) had been treated as an uneasy disorder and toxic infection in B hospital, etc. under the Defendant’s medical care approval, with the Defendant’s medical care approval.

On March 18, 2016, an intervenor submitted to the defendant a medical treatment plan for dental doctors in B hospital with the purport that the treatment of the above injury and disease is necessary from April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016. On April 3, 2016, the defendant issued a disposition to require the intervenor to complete the treatment of the above injury and disease after receiving medical treatment until May 31, 2016.

On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff continued the principal lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the above disposition, and submitted the written withdrawal of the lawsuit to the Defendant. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written consent on the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the Intervenor submitted a written consent on June 24, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. An intervenor as to the legitimacy of a request for intervention by an independent party asserted that an independent party intervention by the plaintiff and the defendant is an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act and submitted an application for intervention by the independent

Since an application for intervention by an independent party is a kind of lawsuit, the application for intervention by an independent party shall state the purpose and cause of the claim that is essential matters of the complaint under Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the independent party intervention application submitted by the intervenor does not state the purport and cause of the claim, and this court ordered the intervenor to specify the purpose and cause of the claim, but the intervenor expressed his/her intent not to comply with the order of correction.

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

B. As long as the Intervenor’s application for intervention by an independent party is unlawful as above, the Intervenor’s interest in the maintenance of the principal lawsuit of this case.