손해배상(기)
1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal shall be the independent party intervenor.
1. As to the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant as the principal lawsuit of this case, the intervenor sought confirmation of the existence of damages claim against the plaintiff and the defendant based on the plaintiff's tort as to the defendant as to the purport of participation by the independent party. During the first instance trial, the plaintiff withdrawn the principal lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant consented to the withdrawal of the above lawsuit, and the court of first instance applies for intervention by the intervenor.
The lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that it was unlawful because it was not equipped with a case, and the principal lawsuit of this case was terminated by the withdrawal of the lawsuit.
Therefore, only the intervenor appealed against the plaintiff and the defendant, and as long as the lawsuit of the intervenor's independent party intervention is dismissed as the lawsuit of the intervenor is deemed unlawful as stated in the following paragraph (2), the lawsuit of the intervention shall be restored to the previous state and only the principal lawsuit remains. Since the principal lawsuit of this case has already been terminated with the withdrawal of the plaintiff during the first instance trial and the defendant's consent, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the independent
2. Determination on the legitimacy of an application filed by an independent party;
A. In accordance with Articles 222 and 269 of the Commercial Act and Article 20 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation by withdrawing from the Plaintiff, a limited partnership company, on December 31, 2012, the Intervenor asserted that the Intervenor acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the share refund amount equivalent to the Intervenor’s share ratio among the Plaintiff’s property assessed as at the time of the Intervenor’s retirement.
However, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case, constitutes the Plaintiff’s active property at the time of the Intervenor’s withdrawal, and the scope of the Intervenor’s claim for refund of the said share is determined depending on the existence and scope of the above damage claim. D, the representative member of the Plaintiff, is the Defendant’s children, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant expressed their intent