(a) Time to revert the donated property of incorporated foundations;

(b) Examples of participation by an independent party;

A. In establishing an incorporated foundation, Article 48(1) of the Civil Act provides for the attribution of contributed property in relation to a juristic person with the contributor of property, and in relation to a third party, the act of contribution is a juristic act, and thus, the ownership of contributed property to a juristic person requires registration in addition to the establishment of a juristic person as to

B. The plaintiffs seek the cancellation of the registration in their names based on the ownership of the real estate in this case, and an independent party intervenor (incorporated foundation), and the plaintiffs primarily seek cancellation of their registration by subrogation of the plaintiffs on the ground that the ownership of the real estate was owned by the deceased and the registration of transfer was not completed. The purpose of this lawsuit is not to belong to the intervenor's right, and the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's claim against the defendant are not compatible. Thus, the participation in this case is inappropriate as it does not meet all the requirements for participation.

A. Article 48(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da481, 482 Decided December 11, 1979

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1488 decided May 1, 2

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na102,103 decided October 7, 1980

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the part concerning participation by independent parties is revoked.

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

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

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

A. The judgment of the court below is that Article 48 (1) of the Civil Code provides for the attribution of contributed property in relation to a juristic person with the contributor of property in relation to the establishment of an incorporated foundation, and in relation to a third party, the act of contribution is a juristic act, and therefore the ownership of contributed property to the juristic person should be registered in addition to the establishment of the juristic person. This is reasonable in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the party member's remand on this case, and the third party's theory that "the third party" refers to a third party with a legitimate interest is an independent theory on this issue.

B. As to an independent party's lawsuit for intervention, the following decision by authority is without merit.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for intervention as an independent party to a lawsuit by asserting that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit between others is his own right or is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit, and this is to be resolved in a lump sum without inconsistency with the rights and duties or legal relations between three parties. As such, the original and the defendant's right to the lawsuit aims at determining which part of the lawsuit belongs to the plaintiff and the intervenor, and as such, the plaintiff's claim and the intervenor's claim are not compatible with each other. It is interpreted that the intervenor must make a certain claim against the defendant as well as the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. As to the claim for intervention in this case, since the plaintiff's property contributed to establish the foundation as the principal claim, the plaintiff's property (real estate) is not acceptable at the expense of the plaintiff's foundation, and it is not reasonable for the plaintiff's independent party to the lawsuit to cancel the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's property under the name of the original intervenor's own right to participate in the lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's property cannot be cancelled.

This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)