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 scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a single final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance shall be interrupted, and the entire case shall take effect.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties

(See Supreme Court Decision 209Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants were illegally occupying the instant real estate as the owner of the instant real estate, and filed a claim against the Defendants for the delivery of the instant real estate and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. As such, the Intervenor asserted that he/she is the owner of the instant real estate, and filed an application for intervention with the Plaintiff as an independent party seeking confirmation that the instant real estate was owned by the Intervenor.

The court of first instance accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim for extradition of the instant real estate against the Defendants and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, and dismissed the Intervenor’s claim. Accordingly, the Defendants and the Intervenor filed each appeal, but the Defendants withdrawn the appeal.

In light of the contents of each of the above claims, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants and the intervenor's independent party intervention request need to be confirmed on a consistent basis.

2. Basic facts

A. The circumstances leading to the change of ownership of the instant real estate