B. Whether there exists a benefit in the claim for ownership transfer registration against Eul, asserting that the purchaser of the real estate owned by Eul was Gap and sought implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure against Eul

B. In the event that the purchaser of the sales contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (“Plaintiff”) asserts that “A” is the purchaser of the purchase contract and sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, and the Intervenor (“A”) asserts that “A” is the purchaser of the purchase contract, “A is subject to the denial of his/her rights and legal status by him/her; on the other hand, in order to eliminate the apprehension, “A” is deemed an effective and appropriate means to file a lawsuit to confirm that the purchaser’s rights and obligations are in B, and at the same time, C is entitled to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against “B” and at the same time,

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal on the right.

The issue is that the judgment of the court below is in violation of the precedents such as 4285 citizens' 66,67 delivered on May 6, 1954 and 62Da821 delivered on March 21, 1963, and all of the above decisions are different from the specific cases in this case, and the decision of the court below which points out the issue is clearly explained general legal principles as to the requirements for participation by the independent party and the interest in confirmation, and it cannot be said that the decision of the court below is contrary to this, and therefore, the issue is groundless.

2. We examine the following grounds of appeal for permission.

According to the records, the participation lawsuit of this case (the principal lawsuit of this case) filed against the Defendants by the Plaintiffs, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, the predecessor of the Plaintiffs, sought performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground that they purchased the site and buildings of this case from May 22, 1973 from the same non-party 2, the defendants, and unlike the plaintiffs' assertion, the intervenor himself directly purchased the site and buildings of this case from the above non-party 2 of May 22, 1973. However, upon entering into the contract of this case, the plaintiff used the name of the above non-party 1, his own child in the manner of indicating the intervenor, the actual purchaser of the above sale was the intervenor himself, and the purchase price was also paid directly by the intervenor, and against the plaintiffs, the buyer's rights and obligations as the purchaser did not belong to the plaintiffs, the co-property successor of the above non-party 2, the above co-property successor, and the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the above site and building.

However, on its reasoning, the court below intended to resolve without inconsistency between the plaintiff and the defendant in a lawsuit which the plaintiff asserts that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right or that it would be infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party. Thus, the intervenor must make a separate claim that is incompatible with the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit which the plaintiff seeks to participate first, and even if there is a separate claim in form, if there is no benefit in the lawsuit, the party's participation is illegal. In order to resolve the uncertainty and danger of the buyer's rights or status as the buyer, it would be the most effective way for the intervenor to bring a lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the transfer of ownership against the defendants in this case. The plaintiff's lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the transfer of ownership is not unlawful, because the true purchaser in the lawsuit becomes a prior question, so if the plaintiff purchased the building and the building site part of the lawsuit of this case using the name of the non-party 1 as the plaintiff's claim, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of ownership cannot be accepted as a special reason for the plaintiff's claim for the above.

However, his own right or legal status is denied by others or is in conflict with them, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of his right or legal status against others (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da821, Mar. 21, 1963). In this case, the plaintiff claims that the purchaser of the sales contract entered into with the defendant is the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claims that he is the purchaser of the contract, as in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to deny his own right or legal status by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation that the purchaser's right or duty as the purchaser is in conflict with the other party's right or legal status is valid. Thus, the plaintiff's seek implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership against the defendant and sought confirmation of the plaintiff in this case against the plaintiff at the same time is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da821, Mar. 21, 1963). Thus, the plaintiff's claim for registration of transfer of ownership and the plaintiff's right to claim for transfer of ownership against the defendant cannot be acknowledged as legitimate as one's right to participate in the contract.

Therefore, under the premise that the part of the intervenor's claim against the plaintiff is illegal as having no interest in confirmation, the court below held that the application for intervention by the independent party of this case is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for participation. It is reasonable to view that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the lawsuit for confirmation and the lawsuit for intervention by the independent party, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed based on the permitted appeal, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)