beta
Text
1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;
2. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance; and
3. The defendant's plaintiff.
Reasons
1. An independent party intervenor who filed an application for intervention on April 22, 2016 omitted the purport of participation and failed to properly state the inducement for participation.
Therefore, even though this court ordered the correction, the independent party intervenor did not correct it.
Therefore, the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation.
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4-1 of the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4-1 of the evidence Nos. 1 (the defendant's seal No. 10 of the defendant's seal affixed with the above evidence No. 10 of the defendant's seal and the whole purport of the oral argument are acknowledged as being based on the defendant's seal, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established), 8-1, 2, and 11 of the evidence No. 8, and the witness of the first instance trial.
(1) On December 14, 2007, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the construction cost of KRW 1,860,000,000 for the construction work for the main complex building on the land B in Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. On June 17, 2008, the Busan District Court 2008Kadan9433, the Defendant suspended construction work due to the issue of construction cost while performing the instant construction work, and seized the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as the claim claim amounting to KRW 445,676,853, and applied for the payment order against the Plaintiff as Busan District Court 2008Kadan14696, Jun. 17, 2008.
1. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 200,000,000 in cash, KRW 50,000,000 in promissory notes, KRW 50,000 in cash (three months on the payment date) until January 10, 209, and KRW 50 million in cash until February 28, 2009, KRW 50,000 in promissory notes, and KRW 50,000 in cash (three months on the payment date) respectively.
2. Even before the date of payment, the Defendant was suspended from the next day after the Plaintiff received both the money stated in paragraph (1) and the bill from the Plaintiff.