2012Du25378 Action for revocation, including a corrective order

Korea Aerospace Industry Co., Ltd.

Fair Trade Commission

person

Modex, Inc.

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu39389 Decided October 18, 2012

February 12, 2015

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

An intervenor may conduct litigation until a decision not to permit his intervention becomes final and conclusive, even where there exists an objection against his intervention (Article 75(1) of the Civil Procedure Act).

Meanwhile, the role of the assistant intervenor in performing the litigation is not derived from the original party, but independent authority. Thus, apart from the original party, the assistant intervenor must be notified of the date and the service of the document of lawsuit to the assistant intervenor. The progress of the date performed without giving an opportunity for pleading by failing to serve a notice of the date or a summons to the assistant intervenor shall not be deemed legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Nu34, Oct. 10, 1964; 2006Da75641, Feb. 22, 2007).

According to the records, the defendant filed a lawsuit in this case against the defendant for revocation of the above corrective measures, etc. against the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff had refused to supply the satellite segment in relation to the multi-purpose satellite bid ordered by the Korea Open Space Research Institute under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act among the unfair trade practices prohibited by the defendant's Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The defendant filed a lawsuit in this case against the defendant, and the plaintiff filed an objection against the defendant as to the application for intervention in this case on the first day for pleading for the defendant (hereinafter "the application for intervention in this case"). The court below rejected the application for intervention in this case on the ground that the defendant did not have any legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant filed a reappeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2012No84, which did not deliver the notice to the defendant in this case, and the court below reversed the decision of the defendant's appeal in this case and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for intervention in this case and dismissed the decision in this case's appeal in this case.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below that rendered a decision on the date of pleading without giving an opportunity for pleading by failing to serve a written notice on the Defendant joining the Defendant, which rejected the application for intervention in the instant case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 75(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant joining the Defendant

Therefore, without examining the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han