(영문) 광주고등법원 제주재판부 2018.5.23. 선고 2017누1874 판결

4. The part arising from the Plaintiff’s motion for intervention shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the other part of the lawsuit cost after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

On January 20, 2016, the first instance court's decision is revoked. In the first instance court's decision is revoked. In the first instance court's decision, it is confirmed that the defendant's succession to the status of newspaper enterpriser against the defendant joining the defendant, acceptance of a report on succession to the status of newspaper businessman, and registration of modification to newspaper business (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") is invalid. The disposition of this case in the first instance is revoked (the plaintiff added the main claim

Reasons

1. Determination as to the application for participation by the plaintiff assistant participant

In order to intervene in a specific litigation case in order to assist one of the parties, there must be an interest in the outcome of the pertinent litigation. The interest here refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest, and the existence of such interest refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of the relevant judgment is granted, or where the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit, at least a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined on the premise of such judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007).

The plaintiff supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") is the shareholder and creditor of the corporation C (hereinafter referred to as the "C"), and the disposition of this case constitutes a direct decision on the existence of C itself, and the disposition of this case is transferred to the defendant joining the defendant, and thus the plaintiff cannot perform compulsory execution. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has an interest in the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of this case, and that the plaintiff has an interest in the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of this case, and therefore, he applies for intervention in the lawsuit to help the plaintiff.

The records of Gap evidence No. 23 are insufficient to recognize that the applicant is the shareholder of Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition against the defendant joining the defendant directly affects the continuation of Eul itself. The records of evidence No. 21 are acknowledged as the applicant's creditor, but the instant disposition is merely an acceptance of the defendant by reporting the succession of the status of the business operator and the alteration of the registered matters under the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (hereinafter "Examination Act"), and the title C, etc. is transferred by the contract between Eul and the defendant, and it is not a transfer by the instant disposition or the validity of the said contract by the instant disposition. Accordingly, the grounds for the application for intervention by the applicant is merely an interest in the economy or appraisal, and it is difficult to deem that the applicant has a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

Thus, the applicant's motion to intervene in the case is without merit, and it is not permitted.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) with respect to the allegations raised by the Plaintiff in the trial and the primary claims added in the trial; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional determination

1) Determination on the assertion regarding standing to sue

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a shareholder and creditor of C, and the disposition of this case constitutes a direct decision on the existence of C itself. The disposition of this case is a disposition that directly determines the existence of C, and the assets, such as the right to request newspaper publication, are transferred to the defendant joining the defendant, making it impossible for the plaintiff to proceed with compulsory execution. The plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of this case against the defendant joining the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff has standing to sue in the lawsuit

B) Determination

The evidence No. 22 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of C solely on the basis of the statement of evidence No. 22, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the instant disposition against the Intervenor joining the Defendant cannot be deemed as a disposition directly affecting the existence of C itself.

Next, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 19 and 20, L is the creditor of L, and the fact that the plaintiff acquired L's claim against L from L on March 28, 2018 is recognized, but the disposition of this case is merely accepted by the defendant by reporting the succession to the business status and the alteration of registered matters under the Newspapers Act, and the right to title C, etc. is transferred by the contract between C and the defendant under the instant disposition or by the instant disposition. Therefore, the disposition of this case is invalidated or cancelled, and the above title, etc. is not attributed to C, and it does not allow the plaintiff, the creditor, to enforce compulsory execution. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of this case by the only reason alleged by the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment as to the main claim

Although the Plaintiff primarily sought confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition in the trial, as seen above, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition, and as such, the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition is also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the main claim added by the plaintiff in the trial is unlawful, and the conjunctive claim is also dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.