beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall accrue to the intervenor of the independent party;
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance court shall be interrupted and the entire case shall take effect.
In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312 Decided November 13, 2014). The Plaintiff asserted that B acquired the right to claim insurance money against the Defendant, and filed a principal suit against the Defendant seeking the payment of insurance money. The Intervenor asserted that the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s above insurance claim is null and void, and that the Intervenor is the sole heir of the Plaintiff’s claim, and filed an application for intervention of an independent party seeking the payment of insurance money against the Defendant. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and partly accepted the Intervenor’s claim.
As to this, among the part against the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff appealed only for the same amount as cited among the amount claimed by the intervenor, and only for the part against the intervenor against the defendant. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiff's principal claim and the part against which part of the plaintiff's claim was partially accepted and the damages for delay.
2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the plaintiff's principal safety is examined.