1. The application for intervention by the defendant succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;

2. The Defendant’s Seoul Western District Court on June 24, 201 against the Plaintiff.

1. 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 of lawsuit, and such application for intervention in succession constitutes a summary of lawsuit.

A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate

If there are any defects on a case, they shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85789, Apr. 26, 2012). In a case where a person acquires a right, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit prior to the institution of a lawsuit, the application for intervention by succession does not satisfy the requirements for intervention by succession, and in such a case, the

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1027 Decided September 27, 1983). In light of the above legal principles, the fact that a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on January 3, 2019 is apparent in the record, and the succeeding intervenor acquired the claim of this case, which is the object of the lawsuit of this case from the Defendant before the lawsuit of this case is pending from the Defendant, does not constitute “where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation, which is the object of the lawsuit, while the lawsuit of this case is pending in the court.

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

2. The facts in the attached Form of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant are deemed to have been led by the Defendant under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the Defendant’s Seoul Western District Court Decision 2011Da52687 Decided June 24, 201 should be dismissed.

On the other hand, the succeeding intervenor, who was the assignee, was granted the succeeding execution clause to the above judgment.