1. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s supplementary participation is permitted.

2. All appeals filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of participation in assistance

A. As to the motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), Plaintiff D’s legal representative raises an objection, it is examined as to the legitimacy of the above motion for intervention.

B. First, Article 74 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “if a party has presented an objection against an intervention without raising an objection, the right to file an objection shall be forfeited.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s attorney, at the first day of pleading of the trial of the first instance, has presented an objection against the Intervenor’s motion for intervention without raising an objection against the Intervenor’s motion for intervention on the merits, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s attorney, at the third day of pleading of the trial of the first instance, has already lost the right to file an objection against the Intervenor’s intervention on December 31, 2018.”

C. Meanwhile, in order to intervene in a lawsuit in order to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, the parties must have an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit, and the term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact an economic or emotional interest, and this refers to a case where res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question is obtained as a matter of course, or where the judgment in question does not directly affect the validity of the judgment in question, and at least the case where the legal status of the person who intends to participate in the lawsuit is determined on the premise of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007). As seen thereafter, the intervenors are deemed to have a relationship between the intervenor and the chairperson, vice-chairperson, auditor, and director at the special meeting held on March 20, 2017 at the general meeting held by the defendant, and where the defendant loses, the intervenor in this case is determined as the defendant's executive officer.