1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation incurred between the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff and the defendant are assessed against him.

1. Any third person who has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit on whether it is lawful or not, may request the court in which such lawsuit is pending to intervene in succession;

(Article 81 and Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act). The application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of lawsuit, and the outline for participation.

If there is any defect in a case, the application for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(2) On April 2, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court”) regarding the claim for the amount of the transfer money claimed by the Plaintiff on April 2, 201, after delivering a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on April 7, 2014. The final judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive in the form of the instant judgment due to the lapse of the period for filing an appeal. On January 6, 2017, the Defendant inspected the records of the instant case at the court of first instance, and subsequently filed an appeal subsequent to the final judgment of the first instance court of this case on the same day, and thereafter, on May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he/she acquired the said claim from the Plaintiff and filed an application for succession to the said claim is obvious or obvious.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the first instance court's failure to know the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence until January 6, 2017, which was inspected by the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal filed on January 6, 2017, which was before the second week period expires, is lawful, and thereby, the final judgment of the first instance court of this case arising after the lapse of the period for filing a subsequent appeal by public notice was excluded from the validity of the final judgment of this case and the appeal lawsuit was pending

I would like to say.

And above.