업무방해
The application for supplementary intervention in the instant co-litigation shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit resulting from the supplementary participation in the co-litigation.
The intervention in a co-litigation pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act is permissible in cases where the effect of the judgment also affects an intervenor. There is no basis to deem that there is no ground to view that the judgment of this court on obstruction of business (the judgment was rendered on September 23, 2020) of an intervenor who filed an application for intervention in a co-litigation by an intervenor who filed an application for intervention in a co-litigation will also affect the plaintiff co-litigation intervenor.
The application for intervention in the instant co-litigation is unlawful and cannot be corrected because it fails to meet the participation requirements. Thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.
On June 23, 2019, which is pending in this Court 2019Na12632, the Plaintiff’s co-litigation assistant filed an application for intervention in the co-litigation and filed a separate case number with respect to it. On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of claim and cause of claim on August 8, 2019, and filed an application for change of cause of claim on August 9, 2019, and asserted that his application is a co-litigation assistant, and filed a claim against the Defendants as well as the Plaintiff with respect to
The form of the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor's assertion as to co-litigation shall be deemed as the application for intervention in co-litigation, but considering the above circumstances, the above application is not merely the application for litigation, but still has the substance of the lawsuit such as co-litigation. Therefore, it shall be determined by a separate decision.