logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.19 2014가단5299117
건물인도 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's successor's application for intervention shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff succeeding intervenor filed an application for the instant succession intervention by asserting that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case from the Plaintiff on November 13, 2014.

According to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a third party succeeds to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of a lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, such third party may apply for intervention in succession to the court in which the lawsuit is pending. Such application for intervention in succession constitutes a kind of lawsuit,

A case constitutes a litigation requirement and required to participate

If there is any defect in a case, the application for intervention shall be rejected by a judgment following pleadings.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da85789 Decided April 26, 2012). In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired ownership of the building of this case from the Plaintiff on November 13, 2014. Meanwhile, the time when the instant lawsuit was pending in this court is obvious after the time of the registration of ownership transfer on January 22, 2015, when the instant complaint was served to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor cannot be said to intervene on the ground of the transfer of ownership that took place before the instant lawsuit is pending.

Therefore, the plaintiff's successor's motion for intervention is unlawful.

2. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is dismissed, as the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the building indicated in the separate sheet to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's motion to participate in the plaintiff's succession is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's motion is dismissed. The plaintiff's motion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow