1. The application for intervention in the instant co-litigation shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit resulting from the intervention in the co-litigation shall be.

1. An ex officio judgment as to the legitimacy of a motion for intervention in a co-litigation shall be permitted in cases where the purpose of the lawsuit is to be determined jointly with a party and a third party (joint-litigants) (Article 83(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even based on the assertion itself by an intervenor of the Plaintiff co-litigation (hereinafter “participating”), it is difficult to view that the purpose of the lawsuit is to be determined collectively with the Plaintiff and the intervenor, and thus, the Intervenor’s motion for intervention in a co-litigation is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements under Article

On the other hand, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2020Na10861) was terminated on July 17, 2020.

Furthermore, the application for intervention in the instant co-litigation is legitimate as an independent lawsuit against the Plaintiff.

A claim in a lawsuit is limited to specific legal relationships or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994); if the content of a claim is not a claim in respect of property or any relation of social status, there is no benefit in the protection of legal rights to file a lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da756, Oct. 27, 1992). In light of the purport of the Intervenor’s participation in the lawsuit, the application for intervention in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in the lawsuit (or benefit

2. Conclusion, the motion for intervention in the instant co-litigation is a single and unlawful lawsuit, and its defects cannot be corrected. Thus, the motion for intervention in the instant co-litigation is dismissed by judgment without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.