[2] The case holding that the participation in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit does not extend to the supplementary intervenor on the ground that the judgment on whether or not the land subject to the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit disputing the existence of the right to claim compensation upon an acquisition through consultation falls under an additional and supplementary judgment

[2] The case holding that in the case where the supplementary intervenor participated in the action for the defendant and the supplementary intervenor's assertion that the supplementary intervenor has the right to claim compensation against the supplementary intervenor on the premise that the supplementary intervenor is the true owner of the land in question and the ownership of the supplementary intervenor is extinguished, the final judgment on the existence of the right to claim compensation should be maintained regardless of whether the plaintiff's ownership of the land in question is extinguished or not, so long as the final judgment on the existence of the right to claim compensation is justified, the agreement on acquisition under the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses of Loss is established only between the parties, and the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor is not a supplementary intervenor. In addition, the decision on the existence of the right to claim compensation has no choice but to maintain the legal effect of the final judgment on the land in question, which is an essential element of the final judgment on the land in question, and the decision on whether the land in question has become a legitimate basis for the final judgment on whether the supplementary intervenor's ownership has been extinguished or not.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the above 9-year land was no longer owned by the deceased and the above 9-year land was no longer owned by the heir for the above 19-year land, the court below rejected the above 9-year land transfer registration under the premise that the 19-year land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's heir for the above 9-year land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's 9-year land transfer registration for the above 9-year land, and the land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's heir for the above 9-year land transfer registration for the above 9-year land. The court below held that the plaintiff's land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's heir for the above 9-year land transfer registration for the above 9-year land, and that the plaintiff's land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's heir for the above 9-year land. The plaintiff's land was no longer owned by the plaintiff's 9-year land transfer registration for the above 9-year land.

2. Where the supplementary intervenor jointly brought a lawsuit by assisting the original party while the original party has lost the original party in the lawsuit, the effect of the so-called intervention, which is binding so that the supplementary intervenor cannot assert that the judgment against the original party is unfair under the principle of equity, is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu289, Dec. 13, 198). However, the effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit is a factual and legal judgment that forms the basis of the conclusion of the final and conclusive judgment, and it does not affect only the matters for which the supplementary intervenor claims or could dispute with the original party as common interests (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2091, Feb. 25, 1986). It does not affect any additional or supplementary judgment or defense theory that does not affect the conclusion because it is not an essential element of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous lawsuit.

According to the records, the above Kimcheon support decision, which became final and conclusive after the above deceased participated in assistance for the defendant, is the first judgment, and the acquisition through consultation under the above Special Act is in the same nature as a sale and purchase contract under private law, and is established only between the parties to the agreement, and the parties to the agreement did not belong to the intervenor and the defendant and the above deceased. In addition, the above parties to the agreement held that the above parties to the agreement did not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case as to whether the above land could not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case, because the land of this case was completely changed into the floor of the Nakdong River due to a large flood around 1950 and the change in the water flow of the Nakdong River for more than 10 years, on the ground that the ownership of the above deceased was continuously spread, on the premise that the above deceased was the real owner of the land of this case, and thus the above deceased and the above deceased's claim for compensation for the payment of compensation has been rejected. Thus, as long as the above final judgment is justifiable, the above judgment cannot be viewed as a legal basis for the conclusion of the above conclusion.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of participation effects or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above final judgment, and it is clear that the above illegality affected the judgment of this case. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)