Whether or not the additional claims of the party intervenor are unlawful after the expiration of the appeal period

Where a party intervenor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance simultaneously with an application for intervention of the party concerned within the lawful period of appeal after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and the lawsuit of the party intervenor's claim on the merits is pending in the original court, the additional claim may not be rejected only on the ground that the preliminary claim claimed was made after

Articles 76 and 366 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Nam Western District Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na1498 delivered on June 8, 1977

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

The grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

As alleged by the parties intervenor, the part of the judgment of the court below does not constitute a case where the part of the party intervenor confirmed ownership of the real estate, and the part of the lawsuit under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act does not constitute a case where the part of the party intervenor asserts that all or part of the lawsuit against the defendant is his own right, and it does not meet the requirements for the party intervenor's participation. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the defendant's application for the part of the party intervenor's participation is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the party intervenor received the title trust or other theory of facts in the title trust or other intellectual property register theory, since the party intervenor's confirmation of ownership of the real estate was sought against the plaintiff and the defendant, and the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the trust and the title of the real estate is not a case where the party intervenor asserts that the part of the lawsuit against the defendant is his own right.

The issue is groundless.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

Even though the intervenor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance at the same time after the judgment of the court of first instance, and the intervenor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the lawsuit of the party intervenor was pending in the original trial, the court below rejected the additional claim on the ground that the main claim of the theory of the party's preliminary lawsuit sought by the intervenor was made after the lapse of the appeal period. This error is the same as the theory of lawsuit.

However, even if the real estate was owned by the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch, and the head of the Dong branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the real estate transfer the real estate to the defendant after the title trust, it is obvious by the party intervenor's own assertion that the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the non-party branch of the court below

The essay is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)