압류채권지급 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of dismissal against the plaintiff ordering payment of the following amounts:
1. The scope of this court’s trial under Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act is the form of litigation in which the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the independent party resolve without inconsistency in the dispute between the two parties regarding the same legal relationship in a single litigation procedure. In a case where an independent party intervention is deemed lawful and a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the independent party is rendered on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor of the said three parties, a final and conclusive judgment shall be rendered on the title holder of the judgment, thereby rendering a final and conclusive conclusion between the above three parties. In a case where one party appeals on the merits, the final
In such cases, the object of the appellate court's trial is limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who actually filed the appeal, but the scope of the trial should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion between the above three parties.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312 Decided November 13, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, and 86580 Decided October 26, 2007). In order to collect delinquent local taxes, the Plaintiff attached the claim for the transfer price of the housing construction right to the Defendant of the SMland (hereinafter “the claim for the transfer price of the instant business right”) to the Plaintiff and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the seized claim against the Defendant by subrogation of the FMland, in order to collect delinquent local taxes from the Plaintiff.
Meanwhile, the Intervenor asserted that the Intervenor’s claim regarding KRW 80 million out of the claim for the transfer proceeds of the instant business title was vested in the Intervenor, and that the Defendant, the obligor, received KRW 500 million from the Defendant, as payment in substitutes, and the remaining KRW 300 million was impossible to perform the obligation under the agreement. Therefore, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s independent party intervention.
2.3.