beta
Text
1. The part of the claim filed by the Appointed C among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party D, and the defendant.
Reasons
1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. First, the Defendant did not legally select the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) as the designated parties. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. Thus, the Defendant’s prior defense to the purport that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
On the other hand, in light of the fact that the appointed party is qualified, that is, whether the appointed party is qualified to be a party, the court's ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement, or if the existence of a fact is unclear about such ex officio investigation, the principle of burden of proof should be applied. Therefore, in light of the fact that the decision on the merits itself is favorable to the plaintiff, the burden of proof as to the requirements of litigation ex officio
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff submitted the instant case to the Plaintiff on July 25, 1997 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da39301, Jul. 25, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, it is clear that the Plaintiff submitted the instant case with his personal seal impression and the signature authentication of the Appointor, and the written party appointment of the Appointor’s Plaintiff affixed his seal on November 26, 2015. However, the submitted party appointment is a private document that was not certified by a notary public, etc., and the Defendant asserted that the Appointor’s appointment of the Appointor was doubtful, and accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to submit evidentiary materials regarding the Plaintiff’s appointment of the Appointor by the intent of the Appointor. However, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not submit all supporting materials to verify the Appointor’s intent.
Therefore, it is difficult to see that the appointed party C was made out by the genuine will of the selected party C among the documents submitted with the application for payment order on November 26, 2015.
Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim by the Appointor C is not legally selected as the designated party.