본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원 2015.04.02 2014가단55075

1. The application for intervention by the defendant assistant intervenor shall be permitted;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.


1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff has a commodity price claim amounting to KRW 35,457,950 with respect to D operated by C (hereinafter referred to as D).

B. C on June 4, 2010, between the Intervenor to the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor), E, and F, has drawn up a power of attorney stating that “Any authority shall be delegated when D would be final in respect of all sales claims, fixed assets, current assets (including gold, type approval, and certificate) in the name of D.”

C. The Intervenor established the Defendant Company on June 24, 2010. At the time of incorporation, the representative director was the Intervenor, and each representative director was changed to F on November 14, 2012 and G on June 24, 2013, and H was registered as the representative director of the Defendant Company from July 8, 2013 to June.

The Intervenor transferred the Defendant Company to November 14, 2012 under C’s name.

E. Meanwhile, D was finally insolvent on July 2, 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the application for intervention by the Intervenor is unlawful, since there is no legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit as to the Intervenor’s application for intervention.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the intervenor transferred to the defendant company under the name of November 14, 2012, and the intervenor charged the representative director of the defendant company until October 31, 2012 and bears the responsibility (such as claims and obligations, public charges, retirement allowances, wages, taxes, fees, etc.) with respect to all of the affairs arising therefrom, and accordingly, the intervenor bears the liability for damages or indemnity against the defendant company. Thus, the intervenor cannot be deemed to have determined legal status as to the outcome of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the intervenor's application for intervention is lawful.

3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion company is the defendant company.