The plaintiff assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the supplementary intervenor of the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: each of the Defendant C’s “Defendant C” to “Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial”; and the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion at the first instance trial are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the argument at the first instance trial, and therefore, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s additional part added and the Plaintiff’s supplementary part, despite being notified that the pledge was terminated by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor after the Defendant received the notification of the assignment of claims, was negligent in failing to properly conduct legal review, such as asking the Plaintiff or not depositing the lease deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff cannot be exempted due to payment made

In full view of the fact that the instant pledge contract was concluded between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Joint Defendant C, which is not a party to the said contract, the Defendant is not a commercial bank, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor has a great public confidence in the field of credit and finance, and the Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1601 Decided June 11, 2004, which is a violation of the mandatory provisions, and is not applicable to the case where the Defendant’s repayment is excessive and excessive, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was negligent in paying part of the deposit money to the Defendant’s Joint Defendant C, trusting the notice of termination of the pledge made by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder should be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal by the plaintiff assistant intervenor is dismissed as it is groundless.