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

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. This court's explanation is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the following Paragraph 3 to the application for intervention of the independent party filed by the intervenor in this court. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The appellate court’s second 7th 7th 7 and 8th 8th 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “D”) deems “A” to be “A” (hereinafter “A”) with “A”.

Each "D" of the second 10th 10, third 19th 19, and fourth 1st 1st 1 of the judgment of the first instance shall be considered as "an intervenor".

Each "D" of the 2nd 13th 13th , 3th 10th , and 21th , shall be regarded as "an intervenor".

Each "D" of the third 9, 16, and 4th 7 acts in the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed to be "A participant" respectively.

The third 14th 14th am "D" in the judgment of the first 14th am "as an intervenor".

The fourth two parties of the first instance judgment "D" shall be deemed to be "A participant".

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s application for intervention of independent party

A. The intervenor's assertion that the defendant did not normally perform the instant construction work and caused damage to the intervenor due to the failure of construction, erroneous construction, defective construction, etc.

Therefore, if the claim on the notarial deed of this case is confirmed, the above damage is attributable to the intervenor's loss.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the amount equivalent to the above damages to the intervenor as damages.

B. Among the participation by an independent party, participation in the proposal of right may be permitted when the plaintiff's main claim and the claim by an independent party intervenor are deemed to be in a relationship incompatible with the assertion itself. The participation in the prevention of harm is objectively acknowledged to have an intention to harm an independent party intervenor through the lawsuit, and the result of the lawsuit is recognized to have an objective and objective.