[소유권이전등기말소][집14(3)민,241]
The case where the participation of the party intervenor is illegal;
In order to intervene in a party under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the intervenor shall make his own claim that is incompatible with the claim of the principal claim under each weather condition.
Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Intervenor of a Party
Daegu District Court Decision 66Na20, 21 delivered on July 5, 1966
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
ex officio, examining the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s motion for participation;
According to the records, the purport of the intervention of the party intervenor is dismissed.
The defendant sought a judgment against the intervenor to comply with the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale on December 31, 1964 concerning the 433 square meters in the Gun ( Address 1 omitted) and the 49 square meters in the Dong Office ( Address 2 omitted). The plaintiff asserted as the ground for intervention. The plaintiff, around 1953, donated the above real estate to the defendant who is the second son, and cultivated it from that time, and made a registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on February 12, 1965. The intervenor purchased the above real estate from the defendant on December 31, 1964 and paid the price in full.
However, in order to join a party pursuant to Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the intervenor must make his own claim against the plaintiff and the defendant, which is inconsistent with the principal claim. According to the above purport of the intervenor's participation, it is clear that the plaintiff only sought a dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and there is no own claim that cannot be compatible with the principal claim. According to the intervenor's argument as above, it is evident that the plaintiff did not transfer ownership to the real estate in the name of the intervenor. Thus, the new Civil Act states that the intervenor did not acquire ownership of the real estate. Thus, it is clear that the intervenor only has a claim against the defendant, and that the plaintiff cannot make his own claim inconsistent with the principal claim against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's application for intervention of the party cannot be deemed unlawful, although the court of first instance did not err by entering the principal office as above, and by misconceptioning the plaintiff as legitimate and making a decision on the merits, and it is unlawful to dismiss the plaintiff and the defendant's each appeal.
Therefore, each of the appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be reversed by Dora on the ground that the judgment on the ground is well-grounded, and the court below shall remand the case to the Panel Division of the Daegu District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro