beta
Text
1. The application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of money takeover (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5031780), and the said court served the Plaintiff by means of service, and on the same day, the said court rendered a ruling that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,248,372 and the damages for delay (hereinafter “instant ruling”) out of KRW 17,439,69,698, on the same day. The instant ruling does not conflict between the parties that became final and conclusive at that time, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.
2. On January 26, 2018, when the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant a non-permission for compulsory execution based on the judgment of the instant case, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, who received the claim ordering payment from the Defendant on January 26, 2018, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim at that time, filed an application for intervention in the instant lawsuit, asserting that all or part of the subject matter of the instant lawsuit was the right of the successor
According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, a participation by succession is limited to cases where a third party asserts that he/she succeeded to all or part of the rights or obligations, which are the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court. However, it is obvious that the date on which the defendant asserts that he/she succeeded to the rights or obligations, which are the object of lawsuit, is the earlier day than February 23, 2018, the filing date of the lawsuit in this case
3. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff's judgment as to the claim against the plaintiff, which was the basis of the judgment of this case, have already completed the extinctive prescription before the judgment of this case. Thus, the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff based on the judgment of this case should not be denied. Thus, the plaintiff's objection as to the claim established by the judgment of this case is justified.