A. Whether a lawsuit is filed with the content that the debtor and the garnishee share the subject-matter of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending (affirmative), and in such cases, the criteria for distinguishing the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit

(b) The effective date of the continuation of an additional lawsuit where there is an additional change in the lawsuit;

C. In a case where one of the multiple victims of the same traffic accident claims insurance proceeds from the insurer on behalf of the insured, whether the other victim's claim for insurance proceeds with respect to his/her part of the damage in subrogation of the insured (negative)

A. In a case where a creditor's subrogation lawsuit filed against a third party debtor on behalf of the debtor is pending in the court, and a lawsuit is filed with the contents that share the subject matter of the lawsuit with the creditor's subrogation lawsuit between the debtor and the third party debtor, the latter lawsuit is the same lawsuit, and thus, the latter lawsuit is illegal as it violates the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit. In this case, the criteria for determining the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit shall follow after the commencement of the lawsuit.

(b) Where there is an additional change in the lawsuit, the continuation of the lawsuit added shall take effect when the document is served on the other party or is delivered at the date of pleading; and

C. In a case where several victims of the same traffic accident claim against the insurer on behalf of the insured in subrogation of the insured, filing a separate claim for the insurance proceeds with respect to the part of the other victim's damage by subrogation of the insured cannot be deemed to constitute a double lawsuit. In such a case, each victim's separate insurance accident is established, and the subject matter of the right to claim the insurance proceeds cannot be the same.

(a)Article 234(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 226(b) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1618 (Gong1988, 1329) Decided April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 737) (Gong1989, 25281) Decided April 27, 1990

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Intervenor 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na5633 delivered on October 18, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney on the ground of appeal that the lawsuit in this case overlaps with the Suwon District Court Branch 90Gahap215 (Seoul High Court 91Na6896) and is unlawful.

In a case where a creditor subrogation lawsuit filed against a third-party debtor on behalf of the debtor is pending in the court while the lawsuit is in existence, both of which are identical to the debtor and the third-party debtor, and thus, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful in violation of the prohibition principle against double lawsuit. However, in such a case, the criteria for determining the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit shall follow the prior time when the lawsuit is pending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3155, Apr. 11, 1989; 88Meu25274, 25281, Apr. 27, 1990). If there is an additional change in the lawsuit, the validity of the continuation of the additional lawsuit becomes effective when the document is delivered to the other party or is delivered at the date for pleading.

However, in the above 90Gahap215 case, the supplementary intervenor 1 and the supplementary intervenor 2 are the plaintiff and the plaintiff of this case claiming insurance proceeds on behalf of the defendant of this case shall be deemed to have been effective only when this document was served on July 2, 1990 and this document was delivered to the other party or on the date for pleading. The director of the lawsuit of this case can show that the lawsuit of this case was served on the defendant on April 17, 1990, prior to the effect of the continuation of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, even if the additional revised lawsuit in the above 90Gahap215 case and the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case are identical, even if the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case are identical, the lawsuit of this case shall not be deemed to fall under the subsequent suit of this case additionally modified lawsuit from the above 90Gahap215 case. The court below's rejection of the lawsuit of this case as seen earlier cannot be erroneous.

In the above 90Gahap215 case, the defendant's insurance claim is subrogated to the defendant's insurance claim due to the death of the non-party 1. In this case, the defendant's insurance claim is sought for confirmation of the non-existence of the defendant's insurance claim due to the injury of the non-party 2 and 11. If several victims due to the same traffic accident are involved and one of them claims against the insurer on behalf of the insured in subrogation of the insured, the other victim's claim for separate insurance claim for the part of the other victim's damage cannot be deemed as a double lawsuit. In this case, each victim has a separate insurance accident and the subject matter of the insurance claim cannot be said to be the same.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to double litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho