(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.26. 선고 2020나505 판결

3. The costs incurred by the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the costs incurred by the intervention in the co-litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff co-litigants.

Purport of appeal, purport of participation in appeal and co-litigation

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 104,952,448 won, 69,968,299 won, and 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion of the first instance judgment against the plaintiffs falling under the amount to be paid under the above shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs A 30 million won, 20 million won to the plaintiffs B, and C each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from March 19, 2016 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case, and 12% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

3. Purport of participation in co-litigation

The case is transferred to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim - cite the judgment of the first instance

The reasoning of this court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is justified in finding the facts of the court of first instance and determining even if the plaintiff submitted the evidence additionally

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention in the co-litigation

The intervention in a co-litigation shall be permitted in cases where the purpose of the lawsuit is to be jointly confirmed by either party and a third party (joint intervenor) (Article 83(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even if the assertion by the plaintiff co-litigation intervenor itself is based on the plaintiff's assertion itself, it is difficult to view that the purpose of the lawsuit is to be jointly determined by the plaintiff and the intervenor. Thus, the intervenor's application for intervention in a co-litigation is unlawful on the ground that it does not meet the requirements of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and since the plaintiff's application for intervention in the co-litigation filed by this court is illegal and cannot be corrected, it shall be dismissed in its judgment without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.