2. The Part concerning the Claims shall be dismissed from among the requests for intervention by the participants.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant confirm that the 5-1 forest 5-1 forest 12-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government was the intervenor's ownership.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

5. Litigation costs (including costs incurred by participation) shall be borne by both the plaintiff and the defendant.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

A party intervenor asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the plaintiff and the plaintiff were the first friendly non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the first 5, 7 parts of the forest land of 12-1, Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the main claim that the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the deceased non-party 1 on December 20, 1939, in 22, the price is fully paid, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on September 21, 1968, and the ownership is owned by the intervenor due to the completion of the ownership transfer registration on September 21, 1968.

Therefore, if Gap's evidence Nos. 10,11 (each judgment of the court below) without dispute over the establishment is gathered to the whole purport of the party's argument (in particular, the 8th argument of the court below), the party intervenor against the plaintiff, and the intervenor against the plaintiff, the intervenor against the Seoul District Court. On July 17, 1939, the intervenor purchased the above real estate (the 12-1 forest land No. 5-1 forest land no. 7 forest land no. 12-1 of the old Gyeonggi-do Kimpo-gun-gun, Dong-gun, Dong-dong) from the deceased non-party 1 of 1, 1939, and filed a lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure of ownership transfer registration with the reason that the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration has been paid in full, since the decision of dismissal of the plaintiff's claim was rendered on August 2, 196, so the intervenor lost the plaintiff's appeal against the Seoul District Court. This case was closed on June 17, 1961.

Therefore, as res judicata of the previous lawsuit instituted by the intervenor against the plaintiff as the plaintiff, the res judicata of the plaintiff in the previous lawsuit is against the non-existence of the claim for ownership transfer registration due to sale and purchase, the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of ownership based on ownership ownership based on ownership ownership based on sale and purchase in the previous lawsuit is deemed to conflict with res judicata (the subject matter of lawsuit does not vary depending on the difference between the sale date and the price). Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff in the previous lawsuit against the plaintiff is deemed to have no benefit of confirmation, and accordingly, in light of the legal principle of the party's lawsuit structure in which the third area litigation relationship should be established, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff and the defendant is unlawful

(2) As a preliminary claim, the Intervenor asserts that, since the Intervenor purchased the above real estate from the deceased non-party 1 on December 20, 1939 and received the delivery on December 22 of the same year, the Intervenor’s bona fide, deliberation, and public performance possession of the real estate and the expiration of the twenty-year period, as of December 21, 1959, the prescriptive acquisition was completed, and the Intervenor acquired the ownership, the Intervenor’s acquisition of the ownership, and thus, the Intervenor sought confirmation of its ownership.

Therefore, the decision on the propriety of participation in the claim is that, as seen earlier, the intervenor's prior suit for the claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the plaintiff in this case and the lawsuit for the confirmation of ownership on the ground of the acquisition of prescription against the plaintiff in this case is separate from the previous suit for the claim for the transfer registration of ownership on the ground of sale and purchase of the subject matter of this lawsuit, and the res judicata effect of the previous suit cannot be effective in the principal suit (see Supreme Court Decisions 68Da123, Mar. 19, 1968; 68Da591, Jun. 11, 1968). Accordingly, it does not conflict with the res judicata effect that the intervenor's acquisition of prescription as the preliminary claim in this case does not conflict with the plaintiff and the defendant's ownership. Accordingly, according to the records, the part on the preliminary claim in this case is legitimate.

(3) Therefore, in relation to the legal relationship on the merits, the intervenor asserted that he acquired the real estate in question by prescription, and the plaintiff asserted that he succeeded to it from the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff, and the defendant asserted that he properly purchased it from the plaintiff and held the title trust in the front of the intervenor. Thus, the legal relationship on the instant real estate is to be jointly determined between the above 3 parties.

If evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (Each Judgment), 2, 3 (Protocol of Examination of Witness), 4, 7, 22, 23, and 24 of the same evidence Nos. 1-2, and 24 of the same evidence Nos. 1-3 (Protocol of Examination of Witness), and the purport of the parties' arguments are gathered, the forest land entry in the attached list (including this case) was originally owned by the plaintiff 1. The intervenor agreed to purchase the above real estate jointly with the deceased non-party 2 and agreed to purchase it under his own name, and thereafter, the intervenor cannot enter the above real estate into a sales contract with the non-party 1 who is the deceased non-party 2 and the above real estate No. 4792 (Protocol of Examination of Witness), and the non-party 1 and the above real estate were paid on December 20, 193 to the non-party 2, and the remaining real estate list No. 98 through No. 488 of the above real estate was owned by the intervenor. 9.3. 98.

Therefore, the intervenor's possession of the real estate in this case is presumed to be an intention of ownership in view of the nature of its title, and it is presumed that good faith, reputation, and public performance had been occupied (Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act). As such, in this case, as seen above, the prescriptive acquisition was completed on December 21, 1959 when the 20-year period expires after the commencement of possession from December 22, 1939.

Therefore, as the intervenor has a right to claim registration due to completion of prescription, the above registration made in the name of the intervenor after the completion of prescription is valid as it is consistent with the substantive relationship.

As such, since the right which has passed the prescription period under the former Act at the time of the enforcement of the new Civil Act is deemed to have been acquired under the new Act (Article 8 of the Civil Code), as seen above, the intervenor may assert the effect of prescriptive acquisition in accordance with the new Civil Code with respect to the real estate as long as it is obvious that this case is a right which has passed the prescription period under the former Act and has been registered.

(3) If the legal relationship of the intervenor as to the real estate is confirmed as above, as long as the legal relationship of the intervenor as to the real estate was confirmed as above, inasmuch as the legal relationship of the intervenor as to the real estate was confirmed as above, the plaintiff, the former owner of the real estate, without disposing of it to the other party, was acquired by inheritance by the death of the non-party 1, the owner of the real estate on January 18, 194, but the plaintiff's assertion disputing the acquisition of the intervenor's ownership was duly purchased the real estate from the non-entitled person, and completed the registration of transfer from the plaintiff, the non-entitled person, and thereafter registered the title to the intervenor, and then registered the title in the title before the intervenor, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's ownership was wrong.

2. In the same way, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate in this case is unreasonable without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the lawsuit, and the plaintiff and the defendant are obligated to confirm the existence of his ownership against the intervenor who acquired the real estate in this case by prescription.

Therefore, the part of the intervenor's motion for intervention concerning the main claim should be dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion should be dismissed. The plaintiff's motion should be dismissed. Since the original judgment which differs from this purport is unfair, the original judgment which differs from this purport is to be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and to be declared in accordance with the purport of the party's deliberation, and with respect to the bearing of litigation costs, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 89, 93, and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Justices Park Jong-su (Presiding Justice)