beta
Text
1. The intervention of the plaintiff co-litigation intervenor shall be dismissed.
2. B on August 29, 2017: Seoul Central District Court on August 29, 2017
Reasons
1. The intervention in a co-litigation refers to a case where the subject matter of a lawsuit is determined jointly against either party and a third party, and the third party is participating in a lawsuit pending in the court and is subject to Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act as an indispensable co-litigation as a result of that intervention.
Therefore, a co-litigation is permitted to a third party only when the purpose of the lawsuit is determined jointly with either of the parties and a third party. The validity of the judgment on the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant is limited to cases where the judgment on the lawsuit between the third party becomes invalid, and it cannot be deemed that the claim for confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit between the plaintiff and the defendant exists only among the parties to the lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that the claim for confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit between the plaintiff and the defendant or between the defendant and the intervenor does not require a consolidated confirmation. Thus, the application for intervention of the co
In addition, in the case of this case, the deposited person was specified as "the plaintiff and the defendant" in the deposit No. 17899 of the Seoul Central District Court in 2017, and the third party, who is not the deposited party, filed a lawsuit to confirm the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the deposited person, and received the confirmation judgment, does not directly lead to the eligibility of the deposited party. Thus, even if the intervenor, who is not the deposited party, won the lawsuit seeking confirmation that the deposited person has the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the defendant as the deposited party, even if he/she won the lawsuit, he/she cannot directly make a claim for the return of deposited goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 93Ma1470, Dec. 15, 1993). The intervenor's application for the intervention in
In the end, the Intervenor’s motion for intervention in the co-litigation is deemed to be either ambiguous or unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
2...