건물명도등
1. The defendant
(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
(b) As from November 15, 2014, 5,000 won and above.
1. Among the independent parties' participation in the determination as to the legitimacy of participation by the independent party, participation in the claim of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the independent party's claim can be permitted if it is deemed that the plaintiff's claim of the independent party's lawsuit and the claim of the independent party's intervenor are not compatible with the claim itself. The participation in the prevention of corruption may be allowed in a case where the plaintiff and the defendant are objectively acknowledged to have an intention to harm the independent party's intervenor through the lawsuit in question and it is acknowledged that the right
(See Supreme Court Order 2005Ma814 Decided October 17, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43081, 43098 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). In the instant case, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant, the lessee, on the ground that the lease contract on the building indicated in the separate sheet was terminated as the principal lawsuit, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of damages for the delivery, overdue rent, and illegal possession of the said building against the lessee; (b) the Intervenor, as the obligee against the Defendant, sought reimbursement of the remainder lease deposit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the said lease contract was terminated by subrogation of the Defendant on behalf of the obligee against the Defendant.
However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim and the Intervenor’s claim are not incompatible, and thus, the Intervenor’s participation in the assertion of rights cannot be permitted, and it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have objectively expressed their intent to harm the Intervenor through the lawsuit, or that the Intervenor’s rights and legal status may be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.
Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention is unlawful.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff, indicating the claim, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on a one-year basis from March 15, 2013 to March 14, 2014, on a deposit of KRW 30,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the lease period of KRW 300,000.