beta
Text
1. The defendant's assistant intervenor's motion to intervene shall be dismissed;
2. The defendant is 101,913,022 and among them 9,931.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of the motion for intervention in the instant case
A. The Defendant Intervenor’s assertion by the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) purchased KRW 246 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D who was awarded a successful bid at a voluntary auction in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, in KRW 145 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 28, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff’s provisional registration ought to be cancelled, and thus, the Plaintiff’s application for intervention in a subsidy to assist the Defendant in winning the lawsuit is filed.
(b) have interests in the outcome of the action in order to intervene in the action to assist one of the parties in any judgment case.
The term "interest" refers to an interest which refers to a legal interest, not a de facto economic or emotional interest but a legal interest. The existence of such an interest means a case in which the res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question is naturally granted or the judgment in question does not directly affect the effect of the judgment in question, but at least a case in which the legal status of a person who seeks to participate in assistance is determined on the premise
(See Supreme Court Decision 79Nu74 Decided August 28, 1979, etc.). In light of the following, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the first real estate of this case to implement the principal registration procedure based on provisional registration based on payment in substitutes, but the Plaintiff changed the claim to seek a loan against the Defendant due to an application for change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim made on November 17, 2015, and thus, the Intervenor cannot be deemed to gain any benefit by winning the Defendant. The Intervenor cannot be deemed to have a legal interest, such as having res judicata effect of the judgment, or having determined the legal status on the premise thereof. Thus, the Intervenor’s application for intervention in this case is unlawful since it did not meet the requirements for participation.
2. The defendant.