1. The Intervenor’s motion for the Intervenor’s participation is permitted.

2. Of the judgment of the first instance court, against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to this part of the basic facts, the first instance court’s second to sixth to sixth and fifth first instance court’s judgment among the grounds for the first instance court’s judgment shall be cited as the grounds for this judgment. However, “C” shall be written as the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s P, Q, R, C, and this court’s witness’s testimony shall be added in the front of the “the overall purport

2. On the legitimacy of the motion for intervention, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the motion for intervention by this court by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and therefore, on the legitimacy of the motion for intervention, we examine whether the above motion for intervention is legitimate.

In order to intervene in a lawsuit to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there must be an interest in the result of the lawsuit in question. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case where the judgment is subject to res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question, or where the judgment in question is not directly effective, it refers to a case where the legal status of a person who intends to participate in a lawsuit is determined on the premise of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). The fact that the Defendant deposited the money for recovery, adjudication, or agreement to be returned to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s personal account of the Intervenor, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, is as follows. The Defendant may claim the amount equivalent to the above money to the Intervenor as unjust enrichment return or damages, etc., in a case where the Defendant lost because the money deposited as above is not recognized as a valid repayment to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Intervenor constitutes a person having legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.