1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the participation of the independent party.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance court shall be interrupted and the entire case shall take effect.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties

(See Supreme Court Decision 209Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343 Decided November 13, 2014, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted that the owner or lien holder of each of the instant real estate leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendants, and that each of the instant lease contract was terminated, and that the Defendants filed a claim against the Defendants for a counterclaim seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent paid under each of the instant lease contract against the Plaintiff, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was the owner of each of the instant real estate, and that the Plaintiff was the owner of each of the instant real estate, and that the Plaintiff was the independent party seeking the delivery of each of the instant real estate.

The first instance court accepted part of the plaintiff's claim for extradition of each of the real estate of this case and the claim for the payment of rent, etc. among the plaintiff's main claim against the defendants, dismissed the plaintiff's counterclaim, dismissed the plaintiff's application for intervention as an independent party, and only the intervenor appealed.

Each of the above.