1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The application for succession by the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed; and

3. The plaintiff's defendant.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention in succession

A. On May 27, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the Intervenor succeeded to all the rights and obligations under the insurance contract from the Defendant around that time by transferring the entire business to the Intervenor and transferring the insurance contract pursuant to Article 146(1) of the Insurance Business Act on the same day.

B. According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to all or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the third party may file an application for intervention in succession with the court in which the lawsuit is pending, specifying the purport of and reasons for intervention. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind

case is subject to the requirements of the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Order 2006Ma1171 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). The lawsuit of this case was filed on August 13, 2015, and a duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on August 28, 2015. The fact that the time when the intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the insurance contract from the Defendant on August 27, 2015, the time when the intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the insurance contract from the Defendant before the lawsuit of this case was pending, is apparent in the record. Thus, the intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the insurance contract from the Defendant before the lawsuit of this case, which cannot be deemed to constitute “where the lawsuit is pending before the court” under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the Intervenor’s application for intervention by succession is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for intervention by succession under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the co-defendant A, a co-defendant A, driving C in drinking on August 23, 2012, led to the impulse A driven in the vicinity of the red control station in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; and (b) the Plaintiff paid the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to his bereaved family members due to the death of B due to the foregoing accident, the Defendant, a liability insurer of the said C vehicle, is jointly with A.