사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff Korea LightM successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed.
2. The participation by succession.
1. Whether the Intervenor’s application for intervention is legitimate
A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a fraudulent act against Defendant F, G, and H around the Plaintiff, the Intervenor filed an application for succession to the claim against the Defendants for the cancellation of each of the above registrations on the grounds of a false agreement, false representation, etc., by asserting that the Intervenor acquired the claim for the construction price against K, Inc., Ltd., the Plaintiff Korea LightM (hereinafter “K”), and that the Intervenor filed an application for succession to the claim against the Defendants.
B. The Plaintiff Han-M filed the instant lawsuit on December 14, 2012, and the closing of argument was made on March 28, 2014, and the Intervenor’s application for intervention on succession was made on September 3, 2015, which was after the date of the closing of argument, is apparent in the record.
According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, a third party may intervene in a lawsuit by asserting that he/she succeeded to all or part of the rights or obligations, which are the object of the lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court. However, in cases where a request for intervention in succession is filed after the closure of pleadings, whether the pleading is resumed or not does not have the obligation to resume to the court and ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26997, Mar. 11, 2005). Thus, unless the court does not resume the pleading, the
In light of the above, the intervenor's application for intervention by succession is inappropriate due to lack of cases, and further, the intervenor is deemed to have already acquired the claim for construction cost against K before December 14, 2012, which was filed for the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the intervenor's application for intervention by succession is not required
It is unlawful on account of its lack of case.
2. In conclusion, the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the succession of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.