beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff is a law firm in Korea.
Reasons
1. In a case where a party asserts that all or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit within the scope of adjudication in this Court is his own right or participates in a lawsuit between others as a party by asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right or is infringed upon by the lawsuit, the part of the intervention at the time when the judgment rejecting the intervention became final and conclusive shall be relieved and shall be restored to the principal lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4294Da251,252, May 24, 1962; 91Da4669, 91Da4676, May 26, 1992). C filed an application for intervention by an independent party in the first instance trial by asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon according to the outcome of the lawsuit in this case, the court of
In this regard, not only the above applicant but also the plaintiff or the defendant did not file an appeal, and there is no need to confirm the unity between the principal lawsuit and the principal lawsuit. Therefore, the part concerning the application for intervention by the independent party among the judgment of the first instance is separated from the remaining part and confirmed, and only the part concerning the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the first instance constitutes the scope of the
2. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there shall be no counter-proofs:
Around October 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant that “If the Defendant invests KRW 1,00,000,000 in the Plaintiff’s multi-household construction business, the Plaintiff would pay a certain amount of profit, other than the principal, to the Defendant by May 31, 2014.”
Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,000,000 (=500,000,000,000) to October 29, 2013 (=500,000,000).
B. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y Young Construction”) and the said housing.