1. The motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.

2. The defendant's District Court of Chuncheon against the plaintiff.

1. As to the legitimacy of the application for intervention, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserted that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant when the Defendant subrogated for KRW 1.65 million for the Plaintiff’s obligation, and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor has a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff won in the instant case, and the Defendant’s Intervenor asserted that it is necessary to intervene in the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Defendant, as the Defendant would have a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserted that it is necessary to intervene in the instant lawsuit for the Defendant.

On the other hand, in order to intervene in an action to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there must be an interest in the result of the action in question. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case where the judgment in question is subject to res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question, or where the judgment in question does not directly affect the validity of the judgment in question, which means a case in which the legal status of the person who intends to participate in the action is determined at least on the premise of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu74, Aug. 28, 1979). Thus, the circumstance in which the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor is in fact an economic interest and does not constitute a case in which the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor has a legal interest required as a requirement for participation, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the defendant has a legal interest in the result of

Therefore, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the instant case is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for participation.

2. Although the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 1.65 billion against the Plaintiff does not exist, it is against the Plaintiff regarding the above loan claim.