1. The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

We examine the legitimacy of the application for intervention by the independent party ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the application for intervention by the independent party.

An independent party may participate in a trial at a fact-finding court when a lawsuit is pending. Thus, in cases where an application for intervention has been filed after the closing of arguments at a fact-finding court, it is unlawful

In the instant case, on May 20, 2020, the independent party intervenor asserted that “The gold type of this case was purchased by the independent party intervenor and leased it to D, and that he leased it to the defendant who was not the plaintiff from February 2019, the independent party intervenor submitted an application for participation by the independent party to the trial.”

However, this case's application for intervention was filed after May 7, 2020, which is the closing date of pleadings in the principal lawsuit, and the judgment is declared as it is without resumption of pleadings that have been closed in the principal lawsuit. Thus, the application for intervention by the independent party of this case is required.

It is unlawful by putting together a case on its account.

2. Facts of recognition;

A.D operated an individual entrepreneur, “E,” which manufactures automobile parts, and F was transferred to E.

B. On November 24, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant gold pool to D and F, and concluded a lease agreement again by setting the lease period as 24 months until December 30, 2016, the rent is KRW 300,000 per month, and the payment date on December 2015, when extending the said lease period.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) as an independent party intervenor, shall take over E’s business from D on January 2016 and became a joint representative of E on July 4, 2016.

C used various mechanical equipment, including the instant gold model, and paid the rent to the Plaintiff.

On February 1, 2019, the defendant prepared a transfer contract with C to take over the business of E, and the sole representative of E by filing a corrective report on the same day.