1. All appeals by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff rejected the intervenor's application for intervention in the independent party within the appeal period, and the intervenor did not appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. In the case where only the plaintiff appealed, the part which rejected the above application for intervention in the independent party shall, notwithstanding the plaintiff's appeal, be determined separately from the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4669, 91Da4676, May 26, 192). The first instance court rejected the application for intervention in the first instance court, asserting that the first instance court's application for intervention in the independent party infringed upon his right according to the result of the principal lawsuit, on the ground that the

In this regard, not only the above applicant but also the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and the defendant did not file an appeal, and there is no need for the unity between the principal lawsuit and the principal lawsuit. Therefore, the part concerning the application for intervention by the independent party among the judgment of the first instance is separated from the remaining part and confirmed, and only the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance constitutes the scope of the judgment of this

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in paragraph (3) above; and (b) it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “an additional part of the trial” as stated in paragraph (4) below, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. On the other hand, the part of the trial of the court of first instance, ranging from 16 pages 20 to 17 pages 13, shall be reversed as follows.

- -

C. The assertion by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is that the Defendant unilaterally excluded the Plaintiff from the instant reconstruction project by cancelling the instant service agreement, and the Defendant did not cause damage to the Plaintiff, but paid the money received from the Plaintiff pursuant to paragraph (2) of the terms of the instant service agreement and the services provided by the Plaintiff.