[1] Whether the progress of the date conducted without giving an opportunity for pleading by failing to serve a notice of date or a summons to the supplementary intervenor (negative)

[2] In a case where the supplementary intervenor, who was not served with the date notice, was given an opportunity to appear and present at the date for pleading, and did not raise an objection as to the failure to serve with the notice of date at the time of pleading, whether the defect in the procedural progress without the notice of date is cured (affirmative)

[1] The role of the assistant intervenor in performing the lawsuit is not derived from the original party, but is an independent authority. Thus, the notice of the date and the service of the document of lawsuit to the assistant intervenor, separate from the original party, shall be carried out for the assistant intervenor, and the progress of the date performed without giving the assistant intervenor an opportunity for pleading by not serving a notice of the date or a summons shall not be deemed legitimate.

[2] If the supplementary intervenor, who was not served with the date notice, was given an opportunity to appear and present at the date for pleading, and did not raise an objection as to the failure to serve with the notice of date at the time of pleading, the defect in the procedural progress without the notice of date is cured.

[1] Articles 71 and 167 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 71, 151, and 167 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 64Nu34 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1495) Supreme Court Decision 68Ma384 delivered on May 31, 1968

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Shin Sang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

An intervenor;

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Na2562 Decided October 12, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In light of the records, the court below's finding that the plaintiff purchased each land listed in the separate sheet of the court below from the non-party who is the father of the defendant, by taking full account of the evidence in its reasoning, is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and no violation

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The capacity of the assistant intervenor to perform the litigation is not derived from the original party, but is an independent authority. Thus, it is wrong for the court below to proceed with the first preparatory date for pleading and the first preparatory date for pleading without delivering the date notice or summons to the assistant intervenor separately from the original party. The progress of the date which was conducted without giving an opportunity for pleading by failing to serve the date notice or summons to the assistant intervenor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Nu34, Oct. 30, 1964; 68Ma384, May 31, 1968). Therefore, it is wrong for the supplementary intervenor to proceed with the first preparatory date for pleading and the first preparatory date for pleading without delivering the date notice to the assistant intervenor.

However, according to the records, it is acknowledged that the application for intervention of the Intervenor’s assertion on the merits was deemed to have been stated on the date for preparatory pleading of the original instance, and the Intervenor was given an opportunity to attend and speak directly on the date for the second pleading of the original instance, and the Intervenor at the time of the aforementioned pleadings did not raise any objection as to the fact that the Intervenor was unable to receive the notice of the date as above. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect in the process progress as above, which did not notify the Intervenor of the date, was cured and did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Ultimately, the third ground for appeal pointing out the defect in the process progress of the original judgment cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)