beta
Text
1. The Intervenor’s motion for the Intervenor’s participation is permitted.
2.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. Whether the application for intervention is legitimate or not, the plaintiff raises an objection against the application for intervention at the trial of the defendant's supplementary participant, and therefore, whether the above application for intervention is legitimate or not.
In order to intervene in a case to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there shall be an interest in the result of the relevant lawsuit, and the term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, which means a legal interest, and this does not directly affect the effect of the judgment where the judgment of the relevant lawsuit is subject to res judicata or executive power, or where the relevant
Even if the judgment is based on the legal status of a person who intends to participate in the assistance, it refers to the case in which the legal status is determined.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007, and 99Da12796 Decided July 9, 199, etc.) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant received dividends in the status of the Defendant’s Intervenor and the person who created the right to collateral security of KRW 150 million on the instant real estate owned by the Defendant’s Intervenor at the auction procedure for the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, taking full account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant received dividends in the status of the Defendant’s Intervenor and the person who established the right to collateral security of KRW 150 million on the grounds that the distribution was erroneous in the above auction procedure. Thus, in the instant lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment, the Defendant against the Defendant is entitled to claim reimbursement against the Defendant based on the aforementioned right to collateral security, and the Defendant’s Intervenor has legal interest in the outcome
Therefore, the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention on behalf of the Defendant is lawful as it is possible to intervene in the Intervenor’s motion.
Therefore, the plaintiff's objection cannot be accepted.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is stated by the court of first instance.