beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The majority who have a common interest in the selection requirement of the designated party can select the designated party under Article 53 of the Civil Procedure Act. In this case, the common interest column refers to the relation between the majority and co-litigants and the common interest method of attack and defense (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da15474, Aug. 24, 199). As seen later, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party are co-litigants and the major means of attack and defense are considered to be common. Thus, the lawsuit through the plaintiff (appointed party) is lawful.
Furthermore, not only the Plaintiff (Appointeds) but also the designated parties delegated an attorney-at-law G to act on April 18, 2016 to conduct major procedural acts through the said attorney-at-law. The requirements for the selection of the designated parties to prevent the elective party from avoiding the principle of attorney-at-law representation in the purport of demanding “joint interests” and it is a separate resolution of the dispute. In addition, the instant lawsuit by the designated parties cannot be dismissed as illegal due to the lack of standing.
2. Basic facts
A. On November 17, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a contract for the establishment of a household with D and E-House, and D had employed the Plaintiffs and engaged in the establishment of a household, but notified the Plaintiffs that the dispute arises between D and the Plaintiffs to suspend and withdraw the work.
B. Around December 8, 2014, the Defendant Company promised Defendant C and F, a general director of the Defendant Company, to send Defendant C and F, to the E construction site, to pay the cost of household installation in lieu of D, and drafted “Written undertaking related to work at the E site” (Evidence A 1).
C. The Plaintiff (Appointed) is the supplier of the “H” that he operated and is supplied with the Defendant Company.