명의개서 청구의 소
1. The supplementary participation of the Defendant-Counterclaim Intervenor is not permitted;
2. An appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. In order to intervene in a lawsuit to assist one of the parties in a judgment on whether to permit participation in the lawsuit, the intervenor must have a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da242440, Jul. 26, 2018). When the party raises an objection against participation, the intervenor must vindicate the grounds for participation.
(Article 73(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 73(1)). However, in the instant case, it is clear in the record that the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the Intervenor’s Intervenor asserted that “to intervene in the lawsuit to assist the Defendant,” and did not provide any explanation as to what legal interest exists in the outcome of the instant lawsuit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Intervenor has a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, the motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant does not permit the intervention on the ground that it has no reason.
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in this part are as follows.
as described in paragraph 1, c).
In addition to the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant's assertion as stated in paragraph (1), it is identical to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.
B. “C” shall be added to “D” following the second to the second to the second to the decision of the court of first instance.
The third written decision of the court of first instance shall be in accordance with the agreement of the third written decision of the court of first instance.
The 7th judgment of the court of first instance asserts that "K, L, and acquiring shares from K" in Part 13 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance "K, L, and the Plaintiff exercised a pledge right against V shares on the premise that some of the shares of K and L were transferred to V. However, the Defendant's audit report of 2018.