1. The application for intervention by the succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s petition for retrial.

1. The plaintiff, on July 23, 2001, filed a lawsuit against the defendant (representative AD at the time) seeking the return of the purchase price under the Daejeon District Court 2001Gahap5771, but was dismissed on April 25, 2002, and appealed by the Daejeon High Court 2002Na3769, but was dismissed on March 5, 2003, and again appealed by the Supreme Court 2003Da187466, but was dismissed on June 13, 2003.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 28, 2003, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the claim for refund of the purchase price, etc. against the Defendant from the Plaintiff, and sought payment of the same amount as that of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim against the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s application for intervention on the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s motion for intervention on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for retrial constituted grounds for retrial, and the case on the merits should be restored, as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s request for intervention on the Plaintiff’s request for intervention on the grounds that the existence of grounds for retrial is recognized,

I would like to say.

3. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant, on the ground of Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, filed a lawsuit with the defendant's representative known to AD at the time of filing the lawsuit on July 23, 2001, because the defendant, on the grounds of Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Daejeon District Court 96Ja159 case between the plaintiff and the defendant, was the representative of the defendant at the time of filing the petition for quasi-deliberation as 200 quasi-Appellant 1 of the Daejeon District Court.

However, AD has recently become aware that it is a person who cannot become a final member of the defendant.

Therefore, the lawsuit subject to review of this case is brought by a person who is not a legitimate representative of the defendant.