All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da46170 Decided October 23, 2019【Payment Amount, etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In a case where: (a) during the pendency of litigation, a third party participated in a lawsuit pursuant to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) while not contesting the succession of the plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (the said third party), the plaintiff neither seceded nor withdrew from the lawsuit, or remained in the litigation because of the defendant’s non-consent, whether Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act regarding indispensable co-litigation applies to claims overlapped by succession between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (affirmative) [2] Even if a stock company is dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act and liquidation is considered to have been completed, where there is a need for practical consolidation of a company because a certain legal relationship remains in the said company, whether the company does not become extinct to the extent of the remaining legal relationship (affirmative), and in such instance, the person to become liquidator representing the company [3] Meaning of “novation” as stated in Article 500 of the Civil Act, and in a case where declaration of intent by the interested parties remains unclear with respect to whether a newly concluded agreement relating to existing obligations qualifies as novation or is merely considered a change in the due date for repayment or the method of repayment, the method of interpreting the intention of the parties concerned |
|
