beta
Text
The independent party intervenor shall reject the application for intervention of the independent party.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Of the appeal costs.
Reasons
1. A person who is standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution with regard to the legitimacy of a lawsuit of demurrer against a intervention by an independent party shall appear on the date of distribution and file an objection with the creditor or debtor who has raised an objection with regard to the distribution schedule as substantive (Article 154 of the Civil Execution Act). The filing by a creditor who was present on the date of distribution and did not raise an
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the intervenor was absent on the date of distribution of D's real estate D's real estate auction case, Jeonju District Court, Gunsan Branch of Military Court on September 28, 2018, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the intervenor appeared on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure and raised an objection. Thus, the lawsuit of intervention by the independent party of this case
(2) The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the plaintiff's appeal on the plaintiff's main claim is not different from the argument of the court of first instance, and even if the plaintiff's appeal on the plaintiff's main claim is based on the premise that the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was made by the contract to lease on a deposit basis, which is a false representation, and the plaintiff's claim is null and void since the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in this case was made by the contract to lease on a deposit basis, which is a false representation. The plaintiff and the defendant's claim are not a case where the principal claim and the plaintiff's claim are incompatible itself, and it is not objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have intention to harm, and it cannot be deemed that they meet the requirements for intervention of the independent party.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.