beta
Text
1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the Intervenor’s motion for intervention
A. Around November 2015, the Intervenor’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept a subcontract for remodeling and remodelling works (hereinafter “marction and construction works”) with the Busan Csanbu and the Defendant (hereinafter “marcation and construction works”), and DNA and artificial engineering works (hereinafter “inland and construction”).
An intervenor completed the interior and interior works from November 3, 2015 to November 17, 2015; and from December 2, 2015 to December 16, 2015, the intervenor failed to receive KRW 30,058,155 from the total amount of 57,608,155 won for the articles and construction cost related to the interior works, and the interior and interior works were not paid KRW 18,279,250 for the interior works.
The defendant requested the plaintiff to issue a tax invoice in the name of the plaintiff, and the construction cost will also be deposited in the name of the plaintiff, but thereafter, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had already paid the construction cost to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that in this case, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is its own bond.
Therefore, the Intervenor participated in the instant lawsuit and sought payment of KRW 48,37,405 (i.e., KRW 30,058,155 (i.e., KRW 18,279,250).
B. Determination 1) Of an independent party participation, intervention in the principal claim is permissible when the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Intervenor’s claim are deemed to be incompatible with the assertion itself. The intervention in the prevention of death may be allowed in cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendant objectively acknowledged that they had intent to infringe on the Intervenor’s rights through a lawsuit and it is acknowledged that the Intervenor’s rights or legal status may be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22177, 221784, Apr. 26, 2017).