1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part between the Plaintiff Company A and the Defendant is revoked.

Plaintiff

A’s claim.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The Plaintiff A sought against the Defendant the implementation of the procedure for the change of the name of the first beneficial owner in the real estate security trust, and the Plaintiff B filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for the damages during the period until the said procedure for the change of the name of the first beneficial owner is implemented.

During the proceeding of the first instance trial, an independent party intervenor filed an application with the plaintiff A and the defendant for participation of the independent party seeking confirmation against the plaintiff A and the defendant as an independent party intervenor.

B. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the part of the claim against the defendant among the lawsuits filed by the independent party intervenor, accepting the claims by the plaintiff A, and dismissing the claims by the plaintiff B and the independent party intervenor's claims against the plaintiff.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff B and the independent party intervenor appealed against the defendant, and the independent party intervenor changed the court's claim against the defendant to seek implementation of the procedure for changing the name of the first priority beneficiary.

C. Even in cases where only the independent party intervenor filed an appeal against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit of intervention by the independent party, if the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor is lawful, and if necessary for the request for a confirmation of unity, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant in the appellate court may be modified disadvantageous

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3776, 37784 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.). In this case, the first instance judgment which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case, which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case, only the independent party intervenor did not appeal and only the independent party intervenor appealed. However, since the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor's right to claim against the defendant cannot be logically compatible, the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor in this case is lawful, and there is a need to confirm the unity.

Therefore, in this case, the part of the plaintiff A's claim against the defendant is also within the scope of adjudication.