beta
Text
1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;
2. The Defendant: 43,438,725 won to Plaintiff A and 3,518.
Reasons
1. As to the defense prior to the merits regarding the motion for intervention by an independent party
A. The reason for the claim and summary of the defense (1) A, which belongs to the independent party intervenor, had been conducted with respect to the plaintiff A who suffered a traffic accident listed in the separate sheet by the defendant's insured vehicle, with respect to the light metal fin-form (hereinafter "the instant operation"), and the independent party intervenor did not have any negligence, and therefore the independent party intervenor did not have any liability for damages to the plaintiffs and for indemnity against the defendant with respect to the foregoing accident. Thus, the independent party intervenor sought confirmation of such liability.
(2) The plaintiffs and the defendant asserted that the motion for intervention by the intervenor did not meet the requirements of independent party participation.
B. Inasmuch as an independent party participating in a lawsuit as a third party asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or a third party asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party, and seeks to resolve in a lump sum without contradictions between the two parties, the intervention in the principal right may be allowed if the plaintiff's claim in the lawsuit and the intervenor's claim in the lawsuit can be viewed as a relationship incompatible with the assertion itself, and the intervention in the prevention of corruption may be permitted in cases where it is objectively acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, and that the lawsuit's right or legal status is likely to be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Ma814, Oct. 17, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43081, 43098, Aug. 23, 2007). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit and the Plaintiffs’ claim are directly seeking damages against the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s fault on the part of the insured vehicle driver, and the Intervenor’s claim is the instant case against the Intervenor.