[1] The meaning of "interest" as an element for participation in a lawsuit

[2] In a case where Gap, who received a provisional attachment in the third priority in the voluntary auction procedure for real estate owned by the debtor Gap, won a lawsuit claiming a reimbursement in order to determine the amount to be actually distributed to Gap who received a dividend in the fourth priority, but Gap filed an application for a supplementary intervention by Eul who received the attachment and collection order as to the claim for dividends of Eul, by asserting the non-existence of the claim for reimbursement, the case holding that the order of the court below which rejected Eul's application for a supplementary intervention was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

[1] Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da12796 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1604) Supreme Court Decision 99Da26924 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2070) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 delivered on April 26, 2007

Korean Federation of Credit Guarantee Foundations

Defendant

Earth Telecommunications Corporation

Seoul Western District Court Order 2013Na31919 dated November 18, 2013

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In order to intervene in a specific litigation case in order to assist one of the parties, there must be an interest in the result of the pertinent lawsuit. The interest here refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest, and the existence of such interest refers to a case in which res judicata or executory power of the relevant judgment is naturally obtained, or even if the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit, it refers to a case in which the legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined on the premise of such judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

According to the records, with respect to the land located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant: (a) the real estate auction procedure was initiated in Gwangju District Court around 2012, 9547; and (b) the executing court, on April 11, 2013, 18,960 won, 10,451,919 won, and 15,690 won, 4,697,694,293 won, were distributed to the Defendant, who is the owner of the right to provisional seizure; (c) on August 21, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant received the claim and collection order regarding the dividend payment to be received from the Defendant in the auction procedure; and (d) the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the right to collateral security, received the claim for reimbursement from the Seoul District Court in accordance with the law, and then, (d) the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement from the Seoul District Court to become final and conclusive.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, according to the judgment of the lawsuit for indemnity of this case filed by the Plaintiff, who is the person entitled to provisional seizure, the Plaintiff and the debtor, and the Defendant, who is the owner of real estate sold, have the difference in the actual dividend amount to be distributed in the real estate auction procedure as seen earlier. Accordingly, the amount of the Defendant’s Intervenor, who received the seizure and collection order, also has the difference in the amount to be collected by the Defendant’s Intervenor, who received the seizure and collection order regarding the surplus to be distributed by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant Intervenor did not have any legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit and thus rejected the instant application for participation. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for participation in the lawsuit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)