대여금
1. The part concerning the intervenor by the independent party among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor shall be filed;
1. The reasoning of this court as to the principal lawsuit is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is by the main text
2. As to the lawsuit by an independent party participating
A. The intervenor's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. In a case where the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or the third party asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit is the party, and the third party is participating in the lawsuit and resolve the conflicting rights or legal relations between the parties by one judgment, without contradiction, it may be allowed if the plaintiff's principal claim and the intervenor's claim in the intervention of the independent party can be viewed as a relationship incompatible with the assertion itself, and the intervention in the prevention of corruption may be allowed in a case where the plaintiff and the defendant are objectively acknowledged as having the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, and it is recognized as a result of the lawsuit that there is possibility of infringing the intervenor's rights or legal status.
[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106245 decided May 13, 201, etc.] In a case where an intervenor’s participation is deemed as a right holder participation under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, whether an independent party participation may be allowed is examined.
As seen earlier in the Intervenor’s assertion, the Intervenor’s assertion is as follows: (a) by deceiving the Intervenor on March 28, 2008, Defendant B acquired KRW 70 million from the Intervenor by deceiving the Intervenor; and (b) the Plaintiff, who is aware of such circumstances, participated in the Defendant B’s tort and received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s KRW 20 million, among the above KRW 70 million.
On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.