예탁금
1. All appeals filed by an independent party intervenor are dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.
1. The court of first instance, upon accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, rejected the part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the lawsuits by independent party intervention, and dismissed the Intervenor’s remainder of the claims. The Intervenor only appealed and filed an appeal against the remainder of the judgment of first instance, with the exception of the above dismissed part. The foregoing dismissed part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
On the other hand, even in cases where the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered in the independent party intervention lawsuit and only the intervenor appealeds the case, the conclusion of the judgment is interrupted, and the whole case becomes effective. However, even though only the intervenor appealeds the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the change of the part accepting the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the appellate court can be made disadvantageous to the plaintiff in the appellate court, it is limited to the case where the plaintiff's application for intervention is lawful and it is necessary for the request for
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37776 Decided December 14, 2007). However, as seen earlier, the Intervenor’s appeal should be dismissed in entirety, and this is not inconsistent with the cited part of the Plaintiff’s claim in the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it cannot be said that changing the part unfavorable to the Plaintiff is necessary for a joint decision request.
Therefore, the part accepting the plaintiff's claim in the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded from the scope of this court.
2. Basic facts
A. From the national bank account in the name of the Intervenor on December 15, 2014, KRW 206,670,000 was transferred from the national bank account in the name of the Intervenor to the attached account in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Intervenor, and KRW 195,950,000 was transferred from the new bank account in the name of the Intervenor to the attached account in the name of the Plaintiff respectively.
B. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant received a report of electronic financial accident from the representative of the Intervenor and received the said deposit total of KRW 402,620,000 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) from the Intervenor’s representative on December 15, 2014.