1. The defendant succeeding intervenor's request for intervention shall be dismissed;

2. The Seoul Central District Court against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the application for intervention by succession is lawful or not.

On August 8, 2019, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he acquired the claim against the Plaintiff from the Defendant and filed an application for intervention in the instant succession.

The succession intervention under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act is recognized when a third party succeeds to the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending in the court.

The record reveals that the complaint of this case was served on May 7, 2020 by the defendant. Since the defendant succeeding intervenor acquired the claim, which is the object of the lawsuit from the defendant before the continuation of the lawsuit of this case, the defendant succeeding intervenor's application for participation in succession by the defendant succeeding intervenor is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation in succession under Article 81 of

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant

A. Withdrawal of a lawsuit against a defendant's motion for withdrawal from a lawsuit is permitted only when the intervention by succession is legitimate. In case where the intervention by succession is illegal, withdrawal of lawsuit by the original party is not allowed, and litigation relations between the original party and the other party

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). The Defendant’s motion for intervention by the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor is unlawful as seen earlier. As such, withdrawal of the Defendant’s lawsuit is not allowed, and the litigation relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant remains effective.

B. The Defendant asserted that, in order to raise an objection against the claims listed in the creditor list, the grounds for objection should be based on the existence, scope, etc. of the claims after the bankruptcy claim became final and conclusive, and that, inasmuch as the Seoul Central District Court 2012TTTT24859 decision was accepted before the claim based on the title of title of this case becomes final and conclusive as bankruptcy claims, the instant lawsuit is not legitimate.