제3자이의
1. The independent party intervenor's appeal is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party.
1. The grounds for appeal by the intervenor quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate.
Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment below with the grounds for rejecting the intervenor's assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
“The Intervenor’s sale of the two infrastructure Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dudusan Infrastructure Co., Ltd.”) to which the Intervenor is an unentitled person.
(2) After taking over each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 5 from the company A (hereinafter referred to as the “foreign company”).
3) In the instant case, inasmuch as the Intervenor’s acquisition by transfer from the Intervenor’s second Industrial Infrastructure Co. was null and void as an act of disposal by an unentitled person, and the Nonparty Company, a third party, is not in a position to confirm the above invalid acquisition by transfer (the above invalid acquisition by transfer is not a valid act on the ground that the Nonparty Company ratified the above lease contract with the Intervenor).
A) The Intervenor cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of each of the above goods solely on the ground that the non-party company, which is only a party to a lease contract, has consistently paid rent, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge that the non-party company lawfully acquired the ownership of each of the above goods and transferred it to the Intervenor. Therefore, the Intervenor’s assertion as to the ratification of invalidation is without merit, and the Intervenor’s assertion as to the conversion of invalidation is merely an independent opinion that does not conform to the legal principles in itself, and is therefore without merit. Furthermore, the bona fide acquisition is not recognized as a means of occupancy amendment, which is not a real delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da1872, Jan. 17, 1978). The Intervenor’s assertion itself is two infrastructure co-operations