유족급여 청구
1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
purport.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The defendant's supplementary appeal was dismissed on July 26, 2019, and the defendant's supplementary appeal was also dismissed on October 31, 2019, and the above appeal was dismissed on October 31, 2019, and the defendant's supplementary appeal was again dismissed on the ground that "the above appeal was pending in the appellate court" was again dismissed on the ground that the defendant's supplementary appeal was again dismissed on the ground that "the above case was pending in the Supreme Court on the ground that the defendant appealed again as Supreme Court Decision 2019Du59202, the defendant's supplementary appeal was lodged on the ground that "the above case was pending in the appellate court on the ground of appeal" in Part 5, 20, 5, 5, 20, 6, 11, 2019 of the first instance judgment, and the defendant's supplementary appeal was dismissed on November 8, 2019."
2. Determination on addition
A. (i) The plaintiff asserts that the appeal filed by the intervenor joining the defendant is not effective against the defendant's will, which is the respondent.
On the other hand, “a case against the intervenor’s procedural acts” under Article 76(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which states that the intervenor’s procedural acts are not effective, refers to the case where the intervenor’s procedural acts are clearly actively and actively contrary to the intervenor’s procedural acts, and does not fall under the case where the intervenor’s procedural acts are inconsistent with the intervenor’s procedural acts passively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53310, Nov. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, according to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 395 of the Civil Procedure Act, the waiver of the right to appeal is kept in the first instance court prior to filing