beta
Text
1. The following amount among the independent party intervenor in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part against the defendant:
Reasons
1. When an independent party intervention is deemed lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and a judgment on the merits is rendered on the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a single final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance court shall be interrupted, and the entire case shall take effect.
In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the Plaintiffs and independent party intervenors (hereinafter referred to as “ intervenors”), and only the intervenors appealed appealed against the said judgment.
Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is the part of the intervenor's claim, and in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs' claim and the intervenor's claim are related to the independent party's participation, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is also subject to the judgment of this court together with the intervenor's claim.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the intervenor decides as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main text of Article 420
3. Additional determination
A. The Intervenor’s assertion 1 was made on May 18, 2006, and Plaintiff Song Young-young developed the Song-young Industry.