The Ministry of Justice's approval of independent party participation in the final appeal

Inasmuch as an independent party intervention has the nature of filing a lawsuit in substance, the court of final appeal may not intervene as an independent party.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and five others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the deceased non-party 1's lawsuit

[Judgment of the court below] The defendant 1 and five independent parties intervenors

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na3563 delivered on July 15, 1993

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All applications for intervention by independent parties shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and the cost of appeal shall be borne by the independent party intervenors.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant performer.

In comparison with relevant evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the deceased non-party 2 was distributed the land of this case in accordance with due procedures prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiff who is the above non-party 2 and his/her sole property heir completed the repayment on December 31, 1957, and determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the farmland distribution as to the land of this case was revoked, as in the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence without proper deliberation as to the judgment of the court below.

The theory of lawsuit to the effect that the plaintiff's claim in this case was extinguished by the above Article of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects is not included in the claim under Article 11 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da123, 124, 125 delivered on April 11, 1972) for the land which has been repaid as distributed under the Farmland Reform Act and the right such as the claim for registration of ownership transfer is not included in the claim under Article 11 of the same

2. The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be considered to be made;

Inasmuch as an independent party intervention has the nature of filing a lawsuit in substance, the court of final appeal cannot intervene as an independent party (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2251, 77Da218, Jul. 12, 1977). Accordingly, the application for intervention in the instant case is illegal.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all applications for intervention by the independent party intervenors are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, and the cost of participation by the independent party intervenor is assessed against the independent party intervenors. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)