1. The plaintiff's supplementary intervenor's application for participation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any third party interested in the result of a lawsuit may participate in the lawsuit pending before the court in order to assist either party: Provided, That this shall not apply where it considerably delays the legal proceedings.”

In this case, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for intervention on May 29, 2018, which was after the closure of the instant argument on May 11, 2018. In full view of the process of the instant lawsuit and the reasons for the participation in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s application for intervention in the Plaintiff’s Intervenor may cause significant delay in litigation procedures, and thus falls under the proviso to Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the application for intervention by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is unlawful, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is an interested party under Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion Kimpo-si D and 202 were owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant and C did not have the right to lease the said building to the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. However, the Defendant and C conspired with the Plaintiff to enter into a lease agreement on the said building by deceiving the Plaintiff on May 21, 2015, and acquired the said money by receiving KRW 20 million as the Defendant’s account.

In addition, the defendant obtained the above 20 million won, which was deposited in the defendant's account without any legal ground, and suffered a loss equivalent to the above amount from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay damages or unjust enrichment of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

3. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed the aforementioned tort in collusion with C or obtained unjust enrichment. Since C appears to have used the account in the name of the Defendant while committing the aforementioned tort, the said money was deposited in the Defendant’s account.