The case deemed to the purport of rejecting the Intervenor’s claim that the appellate court rejected the Intervenor’s claim at the end of the determination of the merits rejecting the Intervenor’s claim.

The appellate court's rejection of a lawsuit at the end of the judgment on the merits rejecting the intervenor's claim can be seen to the purport of rejecting the intervenor's claim.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor of a Party

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2747, 68Na1174 delivered on December 4, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2747, 68Na1174 delivered on December 4, 1968

Each appeal by the defendant and the parties concerned shall be dismissed.

The part of the costs of the appeal by the defendant among the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant and by the intervenor respectively.

First, on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent, the original judgment is without merit. The defendant sold 635,00 won to the non-party on May 19, 1965 the right to 150 square meters of this case out of the State-owned land purchased by him, but the contract deposit is 100,000 won of intermediate payment up to 31,00 won of this year, and 135,00 won of late June 30 of this year, the above non-party shall pay 100,000 won of daily down payment and 100,000 won in exchange for relevant documents related to the registration of shares, and it shall not be changed two times or more because it was found at the tax office after the change in the name of the purchaser. Since the above part payment was not paid by the defendant again and the above part payment was not paid by 300,000 won of intermediate payment after the amendment of the above contract, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above 30000,000,0000 won of intermediate payment.

The following grounds for appeal by the participating agents are health;

According to the records, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the registration of the transfer of the right to share in this case for sale on May 19, 1965, and the plaintiff filed a claim for the registration of the transfer of the right to share in this case on the ground of the successful bid on July 12, 1967. The plaintiff confirmed the intervenor's right to share and at the same time the plaintiff filed a claim to deliver the above site. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the provisional disposition against the above right to share in April 26, 1967, because the plaintiff filed for the provisional disposition against the plaintiff on April 26, 1967, the plaintiff's right to share cannot be asserted against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the provisional disposition against the plaintiff cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, even if the transferee filed for the subsequent provisional disposition against the transferor as the debtor before the registration was made by the transferee. Thus, the purport of the original judgment is somewhat unreasonable, and it is not justified to reject the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Mag-do-Appellee (Presiding Justice)