배당이의
1. The defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation's application for intervention shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's defendants.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of succession participation
A. The succeeding intervenor’s assertion is seeking an objection to the distribution against the amount distributed to the Defendants among the distribution schedule stated in the purport of the claim.
On March 25, 2011, Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s successor intervenor filed an application for succession participation with Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation on April 25, 2016, by asserting that Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation received the claim against the Plaintiff.
B. According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the third party may file an application for intervention in succession with the court in which the lawsuit is pending, specifying the purport of and reasons for intervention. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind
A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate
If there are any defects on a case, they shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). In a case where a person acquires a right, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit prior to the institution of a lawsuit, the application for intervention by succession does not satisfy the requirements for intervention by succession, and in such a case, the
(See Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1027 Decided September 27, 1983). The Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit on February 26, 2016 is apparent in the record. Even based on the succeeding intervenor’s assertion itself, the succeeding intervenor succeeded to the entire right which was the object of the lawsuit prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the lawsuit. Thus, the succeeding intervenor’s filing of the instant lawsuit was merely a case where the succeeding intervenor succeeded to the right or obligation, which is the object of the lawsuit prior to the continuation of the lawsuit
It is unlawful on account of its lack of case.
Therefore, the motion to intervene in the succession of this case is unlawful and dismissed.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The debt amount to the Plaintiff in Ulsan Metropolitan City on October 6, 2015 in the Ulsan Metropolitan City on the basis of the basic facts shall be 79,978.