The appeal by an independent party participant shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

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

A. On November 29, 2010, the gist of the assertion by the independent party intervenor is that the Plaintiff issued 600,000 shares of the F Co., Ltd. F ( currently changed to “C”) that would be the sole property of Defendant C ( currently changed to “C”) among Defendant C (hereinafter “instant shares”).

The acquisition price of the instant shares, which was entered into with respect to the shares (the instant shares were mainly reduced by 207,741) is null and void as a false representation. Since the actual owner of the instant shares is Defendant C, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. exercises the right to demand sale of the instant shares and the right to demand sale thereof on May 8, 2018, as Seoul Central District Court No. 11158, May 8, 2018, which was deposited by the Plaintiff and the Defendants as a depositee (hereinafter “the instant deposit”). The right to demand a payment for the purchase price of the instant shares, which was deposited by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, is against Defendant C.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendants have the intent to impair the independent party intervenor (hereinafter "the intervenor") who has the damage claim or loan claim due to the tort against the defendant C through the principal lawsuit, such as the plaintiff's assertion or the defendants' assertion is not acknowledged or actively disputed.

Recognizing that the Plaintiff’s right to demand payment of the instant deposit is recognized, the Intervenor may not obtain at all the Defendant C’s responsible property, and thus infringe on its legal status. Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention by the independent party is lawful.

B. 1) In order to participate in an independent party participation, the plaintiff and the defendant in the principal lawsuit have the intention to prejudice the third party through the lawsuit in question.

It is objectively recognized as a result of the lawsuit that the rights or legal status of a third party may be infringed upon.

Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga40 delivered on June 13, 2003.