대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The plaintiff's successor's motion to participate in the succession.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and even if the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance is included in the evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9, the fact-finding and the judgment by the court of first instance are justified.
Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of "decision on the legitimacy of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's application for intervention in succession" under the following, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s motion for intervention
A. According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, such third party may apply for intervention in succession to the court in which the lawsuit is pending. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of institution of lawsuit,
A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate
If there is any defect in a case, the application for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.
(See Supreme Court Order 2006Ma1171 dated August 23, 2007). B.
On January 15, 2018, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on the ground that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the Plaintiff’s claim against S(the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor already died) from the Plaintiff on November 6, 2017.
Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements No. 1, No. 2, No. 10, and No. 11-1, and No. 2, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 8,360,305,05,056, which the Plaintiff owned on November 6, 2017, when concluding the instant loan No. 1, No. 2, and No. 11-2 between the Plaintiff and limited partnership M.