The instant lawsuit was concluded upon the Plaintiff’s death on April 22, 2019.

shall be dismissed.

1. If a member of a decision-making body under the articles of incorporation of the organization brought a civil lawsuit claiming the existence or validity of a resolution made by the said decision-making body against the said organization based on his/her position, but died during the process of the lawsuit or dies after the closure of pleadings at the fact-finding court, the status as a member of the organization’s decision-making body cannot be deemed as subject to inheritance because the status as a member of the organization’s decision-making body cannot be deemed to be the subject of inheritance because it is in good faith. Thus, the said lawsuit is terminated without the suspension of a principal’s death without any room for litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da64381, Apr. 27, 2004; 2015Da25258, Feb. 14, 2019). According to the record of the basic certificate bound by the records, the Plaintiff can be known on April 22, 2019, which is the closing of arguments at

2. According to the records, while an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") filed an application for intervention against the plaintiff and the defendant, the first instance court of this case rejected the application for intervention of the intervenor on the ground that it was unlawful because the application for intervention of the intervenor failed to meet the requirements for intervention of the independent party. While the intervenor filed an appeal against it, on February 22, 2018, the intervenor was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal, and on August 9, 2019, the time limit for the appeal was limited, the intervenor filed an incidental appellate brief and the incidental appellate brief.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the motion for intervention is already finalized separately from the claim of the principal lawsuit because the intervenor did not file an appeal within the period of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4669, 91Da4676, May 26, 192). Notwithstanding the defendant's appeal as to the claim of the principal lawsuit, the intervenor cannot file an incidental appeal as to the above part of the motion for intervention.

As such, the supplementary appeal by the intervenor is unlawful.

3. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is completed.