logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나3228
공사대금반환
Text

1. The application for assistance by the Korea Rail Network Authority shall be dismissed;

2. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Where a person intends to participate in an action to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case in determining the legitimacy of a request for intervention, he/she shall have an interest in the result of the action concerned, and the term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest but a legal interest;

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da12796 delivered on July 9, 199). Furthermore, in the case where a supplementary intervenor applies for a co-litigation under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act and the supplementary intervenor seeks restoration, etc. due to the cancellation of the contract in this case, the supplementary intervenor who is the owner of the site in this case and leases the above site to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in this case, and the validity of the judgment does not extend to the supplementary intervenor.

Therefore, the application for intervention by the supplementary participant is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part of "the judgment on the claim of the court of first instance as to the claim of the main lawsuit" in the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Parts used for repair (Article 3-1(a) and judgment on the claim for main lawsuit);

A. Whether the instant contract was rescinded upon the determination on the claim of the principal lawsuit, or whether the instant construction was interrupted by the direction of the competent permitting authority, and the Defendant was unable to resume the instant construction even after July 31, 2013, as seen earlier.

2.2

arrow