Intervenor, Appellant, Appellant

Korea

1. Basic facts and the summary of the parties' arguments;

The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 3 through 8, 6, and 16) shall be the same.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the application for intervention by an independent party

1) Whether the application for intervention by an independent party is lawful

A) In order to participate in an independent party participation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the principal lawsuit

objectively recognized that the lawsuit has the intent to impair the third party, and that the lawsuit

As a result, it should be recognized that there is a concern that the rights or legal status of a third party may be infringed (law by representation).

See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da694, 700 delivered on June 13, 2003

B) Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of No. 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff on November 27, 2014.

The defendant and the telephone damage, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on April 27, 2016, and the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case.

Recognition of the fact that an intervenor filed an application for notice of lawsuit with respect to the intervenor, making a confession of high-priced facts;

However, the above facts alone do not harm the plaintiff and the defendant through the lawsuit of this case.

It is insufficient to view that it is objectively recognized that it has a intention, and it is otherwise acceptable to recognize it.

- 4-

There is no evidence.

C) The Intervenor: (a) the Defendant’s findings of fact in the instant case against the Intervenor on October 19, 2017

In the case of this case, the Daejeon District Court 2017Guhap106151, hereinafter referred to as "the case of this case").

State that the intervenor's rights are likely to be infringed, such as impact on the case revocation action (hereinafter referred to as the "case revocation action").

of this case, however, the rights of the intervenor in accordance with the result of the proceeding of this case and

There is no possibility that the legal status may be infringed.

① The first instance court of the instant revocation lawsuit instituted by the Defendant, in the name of shares between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

on the other hand, evidence that they did not have the purpose of tax avoidance may be found to be a trust relationship

On June 28, 2018, the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s claim on the ground that it is adequate. The Defendant appealed and currently appealed.

The appeal procedure is pending in the procedure of Daejeon High Court 2018Nu11812).

② The Defendant’s shares in the new industry acquired in the name of the Defendant in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant case.

2,468,200 shares (hereinafter referred to as 'the shares of this case') are financed by the Defendant from the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff argues that the acquisition by borrowing was not only the name of the plaintiff but also the name of the plaintiff.

In the litigation of this case, the defendant recognized all the plaintiff's assertion and subject to the principle of pleading.

Even if a determination is made that the funds for acquiring shares of this case were borrowed from the Plaintiff,

This alone does not mean that the intervenor's taxation disposition of this case is illegal.

③ Even if the instant judgment becomes final and conclusive between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, res judicata of that judgment shall take part therein.

It does not affect the revocation litigation of this case between the defendant and the defendant, and upon confession by the defendant, the law

The revocation suit in this case is based on the facts shown in the reasoning of the judgment recognized by the court by the principle of pleading.

The court in charge does not have to comply with the law. Rather, whether a title trust of shares is held shall be held.

not only the source of such funds, but also the process and purpose of acquiring such shares or shares, the management and disposition thereof; and

- 5-

the Board, taking into comprehensive consideration all circumstances, such as the ability of the holder of title, the control relationship with him;

In accordance with the outcome of the instant lawsuit, the intervenor's rights or legal status

It is difficult to recognize that the above is likely to be infringed.

④ The Intervenor participated in the instant lawsuit in accordance with the Defendant’s notice of lawsuit. However, civil cases

The effect of a notice of lawsuit under Article 86 of the Litigation Act shall be the case of a third party who is entitled to participate in the independent party.

Therefore, the Intervenor’s rights or legal status may not be applied in accordance with the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

It is difficult to recognize that the above is likely to be infringed.

5. The intervenor’s result of the instant lawsuit has a substantial effect on the revocation lawsuit above.

In such a case, according to the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12785, 12792 Decided August 24, 2001

It argues that participation in the registration of creation of a new mortgage should be allowed. However, the above decision argues that the establishment of a new mortgage should be registered.

(1) A subordinate mortgagee of a collateral security shall be entitled to file a claim for the registration of recovery on the ground that the revocation was illegal;

a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of the right to collateral security against such person is filed,

In addition, it is difficult to invoke the above precedents differently from the case and specific facts.

In accordance with the results of the transmission, participation in the prevention of harm shall be allowed until the intervenor's rights are substantially affected.

No such an act may be deemed to have been committed.

D) Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have an intention to impair the Intervenor through the instant lawsuit.

In addition, the intervenor's right or law is not objectively acknowledged as a result of the instant lawsuit.

It is not recognized that the status of the Intervenor is likely to be infringed. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s instant reference

The provisional application does not meet any of the requirements for participation in the prevention of corruption.

2) Whether there exists interest in confirmation

Action for confirmation is not necessarily limited to the legal relations between the parties, but is not limited to either party and 3.

- - Other

The legal relations between the parties or between third parties may also be the subject thereof, but such legal relations may also be the subject thereof.

in order to seek confirmation, there is a benefit in obtaining confirmation from the Plaintiff.

It is necessary to immediately determine the legal relationship by the judgment of the court in danger and incompetence, and whether it is or not.

independent party intervenor's rights or legal provisions. Therefore, the rights or legal provisions of the independent party intervenor

2. A threat of being denied by, or inconsistent with, the Plaintiff; or

In case of interference, an independent party intervenor shall have his own rights or legal relations against the plaintiff.

(2) A third party who is not in conformity with the plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserts his rights or legal relations, and the plaintiff's third party

Seeking confirmation that there is no right or legal relationship, even if there is no right or legal relationship in the lawsuit of confirmation

Even if the intervenor by the party concerned has received a favorable judgment, he shall thereby be related to the plaintiff.

that the judgment does not become final and conclusive and does not affect a third party.

No benefit of confirmation may exist in the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da54535, 54542 Decided June 28, 2012)

Loans, respectively, extended by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on October 15, 2013, April 11, 2014, and May 13, 2014

In this case where interest and delay damages are claimed, the intervenor above in accordance with the result of the lawsuit in this case

In order to avoid the determination that the taxation of this case was unlawful in a revocation suit

claim on October 15, 2013 that the obligation to pay a loan, as of October 15, 2013, does not exist

section 1.

However, even if the intervenor is confirmed as such, it shall be caused by such confirmation.

In relation to the Plaintiff or the Defendant, the legitimacy of the instant taxation disposition is not determined.

The Intervenor’s right is not confirmed. Moreover, as seen earlier, the instant taxation disposition is not determined.

- - Other

The outcome of the revocation suit does not vary depending on the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

The Intervenor’s application for intervention seeking confirmation of the existence of the Defendant’s debt against the Plaintiff is the Intervenor’s right.

or there is any danger or uncertainty existing in the legal status, and it is immediately confirmed by the judgment confirming the legal relationship.

Confirmation is not required to be made, or it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means.

There is no profit.

3) Sub-decisions

The application for intervention by the intervenor is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation in the prevention of corruption.

The intervenor's lawsuit is unlawful, as it does not have any benefit of confirmation.

B. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and interest of lending to the Defendant

The defendant confessions all the plaintiff's assertion. Accordingly, the defendant's claim is sought by the plaintiff.

the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 6,950,00,000 and the loan amounting to KRW 1,000 on October 15, 2013

With respect to 2,550,000,000, the day after May 3, 2016, after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case

interest rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by day;

(2) From April 12, 2014 to April 10, 2015, loans of 2,500,000 won on April 11, 2014

4% per annum and 2% per annum from the following day to May 2, 2016, the service date of a copy of the complaint in this case;

15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Loan 1,900,000,000 won on May 13, 2014

from May 14, 2014 to May 12, 2015, 3% per annum, and from the following day, a copy of the complaint in this case.

Before May 2, 2016, this service date, 200% per annum, and the promotion of litigation, etc. from the following day to the day of full payment.

The parties to the agreement calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Disputes and Damages for Delay

have obligations.

- 8-

3. Conclusion

If so, the motion for intervention of the intervenor is unlawful and dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion for intervention against the defendant

the judgment of the court of first instance shall be acceptable for all reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed for some different conclusions.

Therefore, the part on the intervenor and the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the participation shall be revoked.

It is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendant to dismiss his application for intervention and to order the payment of the above money additionally recognized by this Court.