1. The independent party intervenor's appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a single final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance shall be interrupted, and the entire case shall take effect.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties

(See Supreme Court Decision 209Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343 Decided November 13, 2014, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate is illegally occupied by the owner of the instant real estate and filed a claim against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant real estate and the return of unjust enrichment amount equivalent to the rent. As to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor asserted that he/she is the owner of the instant real estate and sought confirmation that the instant real estate is the Intervenor’s ownership, and against the Defendant, the Intervenor filed an application for independent party intervention seeking an indication of the instant real estate.

The court of first instance cited the Plaintiff’s request for extradition of the instant real estate against the Defendant and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Intervenor. The Intervenor’s request for intervention against the Defendant was dismissed, and the Intervenor dismissed his claim against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each appeal against the Plaintiff and the Defendant was filed by the Intervenor, but the part on appeal against the Defendant was dismissed on March 14, 2018 due to the failure to rectify the address, and the order became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the intervenor among the judgment of the court of first instance is the defendant.