(b) If the intervenor's procedural acts conflict with the intervenor's procedural acts, and if the intervenor's procedural acts conflict with those of the intervenor, even if the intervenor's procedural acts are first conducted, the intervenor's procedural acts shall

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant is assessed against the defendant.

The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor shall be borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

However, according to the judgment of the court below, since the contract for the carriage of goods with the defendant company was concluded on the same day, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 2 did not have any gross negligence on the part of non-party 2's agent for non-party 1 and non-party 2 (the defendant company's Seoul Branch's respondent's respondent's representative), since there are a lot of inflammable and sludge, etc. during the carriage, the non-party 2 should be added to approval for the addition to the non-party 2 for the purpose of monitoring fire and theft, and it cannot be found that there was any error in the fact-finding, on the premise that the above non-party 2 did not know that there was a inflammable material among the carriage goods, and that there was no gross negligence on the part of non-party 2's judgment that recognized the non-party 2's gross negligence on the part of non-party 2's agent for the same day, and that there was no gross negligence or gross negligence on the part of non-party 2's court's non-party 2 cannot be punished.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 by Defendant’s agent and the ground of appeal No. 3 by Defendant’s Intervenor’s agent are examined.

However, there is a need and responsibility to prove the negligence of the counter party in the assertion of comparative negligence, and even if the Do governor has the obligation to prevent burning in accordance with the theory, rules, etc., it is necessary for the Do governor to assert that the Do governor is negligent in neglecting such obligation, that the defendant who claims comparative negligence, and that the Do governor did not prove that the Do governor performed the duty to prevent burning, that the Do governor did not prove that the Do governor performed the duty to prevent burning, and that the plaintiff could not set off the negligence by presumptioning the negligence, so all arguments can not be adopted as an independent opinion.

The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 3 and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal No. 4

However, the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it is concluded that the court below can find the amount of damages such as the health room and the original market by reviewing each evidence cited by the court below according to the records. Thus, on the premise of independent value judgment as to the evidence or circumstances, it is not possible to employ a argument to criticize the fact-finding conducted lawfully by the court below, and it is also a loss caused by the loss of the vehicle such as this case, and the amount cannot be recognized without the expert's appraisal. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's finding the amount of damages which the court below acknowledged without the expert's appraisal can not be viewed as a crime of incomplete deliberation. Thus, all arguments are groundless.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant assistant intervenor is examined.

However, according to soar and records, the defendant is liable to compensate the defendant for the damages caused by the special agreement between the defendant and the non-party 2, or the illegal act of the non-party 2 under Article 756 of the Civil Code, and the judgment of the court below also has accepted the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the plaintiff is responsible for the prevention of fire and theft of the transported goods under the contract of carriage, the defendant is not the defendant, and the plaintiff is not the defendant, and the reason for the plaintiff's claim does not affect the plaintiff's claim, and the non-party 2, who is the employee of the defendant Seoul branch, is not the plaintiff's employee, or his business is not the plaintiff's business, but the non-party 2 is not the plaintiff's worker or the plaintiff's business is not the plaintiff's business, and it is not the non-party 2's business

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, in case of participation in the court below, if the intervenor's procedural acts conflict with the intervenor's procedural acts, and even if the intervenor's procedural acts are first conducted, the intervenor's procedural acts are invalid if the intervenor's procedural acts conflict with the plaintiff's procedural acts. Thus, the defendant's representative and the intervenor's representative in the court below's oral proceedings on November 19, 1965, and if the defendant's representative withdrawn his defense in the oral proceedings on February 9, 1966, it cannot be viewed that the court below's failure to make any decision on the plaintiff's defense was erroneous in the judgment, and as mentioned above, the plaintiff's main claim is made on the ground of subparagraph 2 or Article 756 of the Civil Code, and as long as it is not on the ground of the plaintiff's right and duty under the contract of carriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no room for admission. Thus, the argument is groundless.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the above reasons and the principle of sharing the costs of appeal against the losing party.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu