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

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)each entry in the separate sheet;

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

A. On September 21, 2016, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) submitted an application for intervention by an independent party to this court as of July 18, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “an independent party intervenor”) and filed an application for intervention with the Plaintiff only to verify that each of the instant real estate was the Intervenor’s ownership, such as the written claim, and on September 21, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for modification of the purport of the claim with the purport that the Intervenor will deliver each of the instant real estate to the Intervenor and pay 28 million won and delay damages.

ex officio, the intervention of an independent party is a kind of lawsuit during the lawsuit, and the intervenor filed a lawsuit only against the plaintiff through the application for intervention in the instant case. Moreover, the modification of the claim must maintain the identity of the court and the party. In the case of an application for modification of the purport of the claim made on September 21, 2016, the above application for modification is a modification of the purport of the claim against the defendant who did not institute a lawsuit. Thus, the above application for modification cannot be deemed as a modification of the claim that maintains the identity

Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for change of the purport of the claim made on September 21, 2016 is not permissible pursuant to Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. We examine the legitimacy of the application for intervention in the instant case, and the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even though the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit claiming implementation, filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). However, in this case, an intervenor is not a performance lawsuit against the Plaintiff.