beta
Text
1. The request of an independent party intervenor whose claim has been changed in exchange in this court shall be rejected;
2...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the request for intervention by an independent party
A. The Intervenor’s summary of the Intervenor’s assertion supplied steel bars to the instant new construction work under a contract with the Defendants. While the Defendants did not receive KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendants, the Intervenor was issued a promissory note No. 12, Dec. 12, 2016 with respect to the price of the said goods.
Accordingly, the intervenor, together with the defendants, exercises the right of retention on the building of this case. The intervenor sought the payment of the above goods to the defendant C, there is a right of retention on the building of this case by the defendant C, and the part corresponding to the above goods price among the right of retention by the defendants is confirmed to be the intervenor.
B. Among the participation by an independent party, participation in the proposal of right can be permitted when the plaintiff's principal claim and the intervenor's claim are deemed to be in a relationship incompatible with the plaintiff's claim. The participation in the prevention of harm may be allowed in a case where the plaintiff and the defendant are objectively acknowledged to have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit, and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant's right or legal status are likely to be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). Examining the instant case in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff confirmed that there was no lien on the instant building based on the ownership of the instant land, and that there was no lien on the instant land against the Defendants. As to the Plaintiff’s claim to deliver the instant land, the Intervenor paid the price for goods against Defendant C on the ground that the said land was supplied to the instant new construction.