[소유권확인등][하집1991(2),272]
After the closing of argument in a lawsuit pending trial, whether the application for intervention by an independent party is appropriate before the judgment is rendered.
In case where an independent party intervention has been filed after the closing of argument in the case where an independent party intervention was rendered after the judgment, the fundamental purport of the independent party intervention system is to resolve the dispute between the intervenor and the intervenor reasonably by taking advantage of the existing litigation state between the intervenor and the intervenor, not to allow the delay or interference of the lawsuit between the intervenor and the intervenor, and whether to review the application for intervention by resumption of the closed pleadings is the full power of the court, and in case where the court declares a judgment without resumption of the closed pleadings without resumption of the pleading, the above application for intervention is in a state in which it is impossible to consolidate the pleadings with the principal lawsuit and it is in a state in which it cannot
Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act
From among the participants of independent parties:
Masong-gu
Lapbane et al. and 3 others
1. An independent party intervenor shall reject all of the applications for intervention of this case filed by the independent party intervenor to participate in the principal registration suit based on provisional registration No. 90 Gohap21276 between the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the independent party intervenor;
The plaintiff and the defendants confirm that each real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by an independent party intervenor.
With respect to an independent party intervenor, the Plaintiff’s registration procedure for cancellation of provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on July 15, 1979 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 9, Seoul Civil District Court, Pakistan, and the Defendants implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the title trust termination as of the date of service of the application for participation by the independent party to the above real estate.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendants.
On June 25, 191, an independent party intervenor filed an application for intervention with the independent party to participate in the principal registration based on provisional registration No. 90 Mahap21276 among the plaintiff and the defendants on June 25, 1991. The records clearly show that the plaintiff filed an application for intervention in the principal registration based on provisional registration No. 21276. On November 30, 1990, the defendant's operational space and the leapuk-gu accepted all of the plaintiff's claims on January 24, 191 at the second date for pleading of the above lawsuit. The lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant leap-ho, and the leap-hoho-ho were continued thereafter, and the argument is concluded on the fourth date for pleading of May 30, 199. The independent party intervenor filed an application for intervention on June 25, 1991 with the above application for intervention, but the above court rejected it, and it is true that the judgment of this court rendered the entire judgment on the plaintiff's claim for appeal.
According to the above facts, first, the part of the motion for intervention between the plaintiff and the defendant leaple and the defendant leaplele, which was submitted by the above defendants after the plaintiff's claim had already been accepted by the plaintiff, and the continuation of the lawsuit has already been terminated. second, the part of the motion for intervention of the defendant 1 to participate in the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant leaple, and the defendant 1 was submitted before the judgment has been rendered after the closure of the lawsuit, and the above lawsuit has yet to be pending in this court. However, the fundamental purpose of the intervention system is to resolve the dispute between the plaintiff and the intervenor by taking advantage of the existing litigation situation between the parties, and it is not to allow delay or interfere with the lawsuit between the intervenor and the intervenor, so it is inevitable to judge whether the motion for intervention will resume the pleading after the closure of the argument, and if the plaintiff and the defendant 1 were to have the principal lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 3, it is inevitable to combine the arguments with the defendant 1's oral argument without the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, since the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor in this case is unlawful as it is not possible to correct the deficiency due to a lack of participation requirements, it is decided to dismiss all of the applications without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 205(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The litigation costs arising from the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor in this case are assessed against the losing independent party intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Cho Chang-hee (Presiding Judge)