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

2. The defendant's Seoul Western District Court against the plaintiff.

1. According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to all or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the third party may file an application for intervention in succession with the court in which the lawsuit is pending, specifying the purport of and reasons for the intervention. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of lawsuit, and the need for intervention.

A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate

If there are any defects on a case, they shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). In a case where a person acquires a right, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit prior to the institution of a lawsuit, the application for intervention by succession does not satisfy the requirements for intervention by succession, and in such a case, the

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1027 Decided September 27, 1983. In light of the above legal principles, the fact that a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on July 5, 2019 is apparent in the record, and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor acquired from the Defendant the claim that was the object of the lawsuit of this case prior to the continuation of the lawsuit of this case, and thus, does not constitute “where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation, which is the object of the lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending in the court.”

Therefore, the application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for intervention by succession under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The facts in the attached Form of claim as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant are deemed to have been led by the defendant under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the enforcement against the defendant against the plaintiff in Seoul Western District Court 2012 tea 57945 was denied.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant succeeding intervenor, who was the transferee of the above bonds, obtained the succession execution clause against the above payment order.