A. Defendant E, etc. asserted that the Intervenor’s claim for ownership transfer on the land No. 1 of this case and the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of termination of title trust are compatible with each other. Thus, the Intervenor’s application for intervention did not meet the requirements for right holder participation, and there is no requirement for private prevention participation. Therefore, the instant application for intervention by the independent party is unlawful.

In order to participate in the proposal of right under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act among participation by an independent party, an independent party intervenor must first make a claim that cannot be established simultaneously with a claim of the plaintiff against the party or both parties of the lawsuit to which he/she intends to participate.

In addition, participation in the prevention of death under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is permissible in cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the principal lawsuit objectively acknowledged that they had the intent to impair the Intervenor through the pertinent lawsuit and that the intervenor’s rights or legal status may be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da42130, 42147, 42154, 42161, Oct. 15, 2009; 201Da74192, Nov. 28, 2013). As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendants on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land of the instant case, and on the other hand, the Intervenor’s claim against the Defendants (excluding Defendant C, DD, and AE), who are the owner of the instant land, seeks the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the termination of title trust, and thus, the Intervenor’s claim for participation in the lawsuit can be established at the same time.