The case holding that the requirements for participation by an independent party have not been satisfied

In a case where the intervenor filed a lawsuit against the defendant to cancel the registration of transfer of forest land ownership, and the plaintiff filed a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of the title trust agreement with respect to the defendant, and participated in the registration of transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of the title trust agreement with respect to the defendant, the intervenor's claim against the plaintiff can only be made by subrogation of the defendant on behalf of the title trustee, and its ownership cannot be asserted. Thus, the above participation is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Court Decision 65Da1081, 1082 decided August 24, 1965; 65Da1081; 1082 decided August 24, 1965; 72(19); 1674 decided November 16, 197; 13BDoc87

Plaintiff

Jinju Ginju Puju Gongmgu

Jinju Sym Sym Gongmpha

Gwangju District Court (81Gahap327, 1033)

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the intervention of independent party shall be revoked.

The lawsuit by intervention of an independent party shall be dismissed.

The total costs of litigation due to the intervention of an independent party shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

On August 7, 1974, the defendant implemented the procedure for cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership, which was made by the Gwangju District Court No. 29691 on August 7, 1974, with respect to the 8-1 forest area of 35-1 forest area in Yongsan-dong, Yongsan-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on August 7, 1974 with respect to the above real estate by an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " participant"), and the plaintiff shall execute the procedure for registration of ownership transfer registration made on September 30, 1981 with respect to the above real estate by the intervenor.

The judgment that the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant is sought.

The summary of the application for intervention in the trial (the summary of the application in the trial of the first instance) was changed from the intervenor's text around September 1, 1922, the intervenor's title trust was held in the name of the deceased non-party 1, who is the representative of the literature at the time on September 1, 1922, and held title trust in the name of five, such as the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, who is the representative of the literature at the time on October 6, 1939. The defendant's title trust was held in the name of the defendant's title transfer registration procedure for the non-party 1, 96, for the non-party 2, 4, 5, and 4, who already died on August 6, 1974 and the non-party 7, the representative of the defendant's door, purchased the forest land from the non-party 2 and 4, who had already died on August 6, 1974.

On the other hand, according to the above argument itself, the intervenor can assert the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership corresponding to the shares of the plaintiffs on the ground of termination of trust contract in relation to the plaintiffs. However, as to the defendant who is a third party, unless the title of the registration was restored to the intervenor by the termination of trust, the intervenor cannot claim the right to claim the registration of cancellation. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the above right to claim the registration of cancellation, and the right to claim the cancellation is allowed only by subrogation of the title trustee in relation to the forest and fields. Thus, the purpose of the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed to belong to the intervenor's right, and since the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's claim against the defendant cannot be compatible with each other, this case's independent party participation cannot

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit for intervention is unfair, and thus, it is dismissed as an independent party intervention, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing intervenor.

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Justice)