The judgment of the court below is reversed.

All appeals by the defendant and the motion for intervention by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

An appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The effect of a final and conclusive judgment shall not be excluded unless an appeal for a subsequent subsequent completion is filed within the period prescribed in Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, after the period for filing an appeal against a judgment of the first instance expires;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Da2400, Sept. 12, 1978; 79Da505, Sept. 25, 1979). Moreover, a third party who has succeeded to the whole or part of the rights or obligations, which are the object of a lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court, may file an application for intervention in succession with the court in which the lawsuit is pending.

(Article 81 and Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act). The application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of lawsuit, and the outline for participation.

If there is any defect in a case, the application for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). 2. The record reveals the following facts.

On January 30, 2002, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment (hereinafter “the judgment of the court of first instance”) on the Plaintiff’s loan claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) on the following grounds: (a) the court served a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of the date of pleading on the Defendant by public notice; and (b) served the Defendant by public notice on February 15, 2002; and (c) the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive with the lapse of the period of appeal.

B. Meanwhile, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant for the claim for the amount of transfer money (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da369475) and asserted that the Defendant was liable to perform the instant claim to the Intervenor, and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Intervenor on October 12, 2012.

In the case of the same appellate court No. 2015Na37541, the appellate court of the above case, the presiding judge was sentenced to the defendant on October 27, 2015, and the judgment of the first instance court of this case against the defendant on the date of pleading.