The plaintiff is the designated party and is seeking the rejection of compulsory execution based on the judgment against the defendant's appointed party C and D.

However, Article 53(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on the appointed parties provides that “All persons who have a common interest may select a person to become a party on behalf of all of them.”

In other words, only the designated parties can be selected from among the persons who have a common interest with the designated parties, and the common interest here means the relationship between the many parties as co-litigants and the common method of attack and defense.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10470, Jul. 12, 2007). The Civil Procedure Act limits the scope of the appointed person to a person who has a common interest as seen above, because it is likely that the prohibition of the trust of a lawsuit (Article 6 of the Trust Act) or the prohibition of handling legal affairs by non-legal practitioners, the principle of attorney representation (Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 7 of the Attorney-at-Law Act) may be avoided if the scope of the scope is expanded so that a third party who is not related to a case may become a party to a lawsuit.

In this case, the party to the case of the claim for rent claim filed by the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Gaso311822, where the plaintiff sought non-performance of compulsory execution based on the judgment, is the defendant and the appointed party C, D (Evidence A3-2), and the plaintiff is not a party to the above judgment, and thus is not a party to the above judgment, and thus cannot be deemed to have a joint interest with the appointed party

In addition, even if based on the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim, there is no content that the Plaintiff, the Appointor C, and D have a common interest.

According to the statement made by the plaintiff at the first day for pleading, C is a father and D is a father and wife of the plaintiff.