1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall pay KRW 3,394,125,000 from the plaintiff.

1. Whether the application for intervention by an independent party is lawful;

A. The Intervenor’s assertion: (a) filed the instant claim against the Defendant for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration regarding each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) based on a sales contract concluded on August 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (b) filed a claim against the Plaintiff by asserting that a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was nonexistent, invalidated, or rescinded; and (c) filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the non-existence or invalidity of the instant sales contract; and (d) filed a claim against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the instant real estate based on a sales contract concluded on October 15, 2013 by the Intervenor

B. First of all, we examine whether the application for intervention by the independent party to the case satisfies the requirements as the principal of right, and the intervention by the principal of right under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in the intervention by the independent party to the case is intended to resolve in a lump sum without inconsistency between the rights or legal relationship between the third party who asserts the whole or part of the purpose of the lawsuit as one of the parties to the lawsuit as one of the parties to the lawsuit and the third party. Thus, the independent party intervenor is required to make a claim that is incompatible with the plaintiff's principal claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3526, 3533, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, even according to the intervenor's assertion itself, the intervenor's own assertion is not in a relationship between the plaintiff and the two parties to the lawsuit and the plaintiff's respective claims for transfer of ownership against the defendant, and thus, it is not compatible with the same legal relationship.