logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나55482
배당이의등
Text

1. The plaintiff's incidental appeal against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. In the instant complaint, the Plaintiff entered the claim against the Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial in the instant complaint. However, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Young-chul (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the Defendant’s claim against the Republic of Korea does not constitute “where legal compatibility is not possible,” which is a legal requirement under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if the parties claim in the form of preliminary co-litigation but the claim by the co-litigants is not in a legally incompatible relationship, it is not a preliminary co-litigation as stipulated under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, but a common co-litigation is deemed to exist according to the inherent nature of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76747, Sept. 27, 2012). As such, the claim against the said Defendants and B were simply merged, and the part of the judgment against the judgment of the first instance judgment became final and conclusive as is, as it is.

On the other hand, subjective and preliminary co-litigation is a form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves in the same legal relationship in a lump sum without contradiction (Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and a judgment is not allowed to render a judgment on the claims against all co-litigants (Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

In addition, if one of the main co-litigants or the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claim against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and it shall be subject to adjudication by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355, Feb. 24, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s claim is the primary claim against the Defendant company and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

arrow