Effect of Notice of Action

The notice system of lawsuit provides a third party who has an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit with an opportunity to defend his interests by participating in a lawsuit, and on the other hand, it is a system for the notification and the defendant to disregard the result of the lawsuit between the notification and the third party and to prevent a claim contrary to the recognition and judgment in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit and to disregard the result of the lawsuit between the notification and the defendant in the lawsuit between the notification and the third party. Therefore, it is against the factual and legal judgment that is the basis of the conclusion of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit, and thus, it is limited to the matters that the defendant's owner could have asserted or asserted as the notification and common interests

Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act

Industrial Base Development Corporation

Defendant-Appellant Choi Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na169 delivered on August 30, 1985

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the case of this case where the plaintiff's bereaved family members filed a lawsuit for damages ( Daegu District Court No. 817, Daegu High Court No. 1417, Daegu High Court No. 82Na608) against the deceased non-party 1's bereaved family members, compensation for damages, and exercise the right of indemnity against the defendant, first, under the direction of the plaintiff's employees belonging to the Corporation, non-party 1 died on March 9, 1981 due to the negligence in the performance of the construction work of the deceased non-party 1, who was implementing the water leakage prevention work as the defense power pipe in front of the Japanese Industrial Complex in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan High Court No. 817, Daegu High Court No. 82Na608). Since the judgment of the court below acknowledged that the defendant continued to perform the construction work from the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1 and the defendant had no relations of reimbursement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff was also liable for damages.

2. The notice system of lawsuit provides a third party with an opportunity to participate in a lawsuit to protect its interests by having the third party who has an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit participate in the lawsuit, and on the other hand, it is a system designed to disregard the result of the lawsuit between the notification party and the defendant in the lawsuit between the notification party and the third party, and to prevent the defendant from claiming against recognition and judgment in the final and conclusive judgment after the date of the lawsuit between the notification party and the defendant. Thus, it is in violation of the law that is the basis of the conclusion of the final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit after the date of the lawsuit, and it is only against the legal judgment that the defendant's land owner participated in the lawsuit and may assert or dispute against the other party's common interest with the notification party. According to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff was liable for damages caused by the negligence of the deceased non-party 1's bereaved family members to the defendant in the lawsuit of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff and the defendant did not dispute the above construction work from the plaintiff's transferee and the defendant's employee.

Therefore, the plaintiff's exercise of the right to indemnity can not be cited unless it is acknowledged in this case that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the prime contractor, and as the plaintiff's employee, the non-party 2 and non-party 3 of the court below's non-party 4's testimony without any special reason to give unfavorable testimony to the plaintiff, barring special circumstance, and according to the non-party 4's testimony at the court of first instance, the defendant refused the plaintiff's proposal to supply and demand water leakage prevention works at around March 5, 1981, and the non-party 3, who was working as the chief contractor of the Ulsan Management Office of the plaintiff Corporation, was directly engaged in the defendant's human body and the construction work under his supervision. The non-party 1's 15,16,17 and the defendant's supply and demand of water leakage prevention works at around March 23, 1981, which the court below rejected the plaintiff's remaining supply and demand of the plaintiff 13 of this case's 1981.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the notice of lawsuit and the fact of cooking evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju