(a) Where there is an error of trial without specifying the cause of the claim by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the division of the article jointly owned;

(b) A case where the requirements for participation by an independent party are not satisfied; and

Even according to the allegations by the intervenor itself, the acquisition of his/her rights may be asserted in relation to the defendant. However, if the previous intervenor and the plaintiff cannot be asserted in relation to the defendant, this would eventually fail to meet the requirements for an independent party intervention lawsuit that requires the resolution of the three-area litigation relationship without contradiction by a single judgment.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Yu Jae-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Yong-hoon, Counsel for defendant)

Incheon City (Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Article 2 (Order of Use of Attorney Lee In-Law)

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na986, 64Na614, 64Na878 Decided March 18, 1966

(1) Of the original judgment, the plaintiffs' appeal against the part which dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the 2367 Incheon City ( Address 1 omitted) and 2367 is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(2) Of the original judgment, the part of the forest land of 2354 square meters and ( Address 3 omitted) forest land of 397 square meters in Incheon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted) shall be reversed.

An appeal by two participating parties shall be dismissed.

The total cost of the litigation incurred by the participation of the intervenor shall be borne by the intervenor.

The remainder of each of the above real estate is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) According to the records, the plaintiffs filed a lawful appeal against the part of the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' lawsuit against 2367 of the Incheon City (No. 1 omitted), but the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal, and the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiffs does not contain any grounds of appeal as to the above part of appeal. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeal against this part is dismissed.

(2) We examine the original judgment on the forest land of 2354 square meters and ( Address 3 omitted) forest land of 497 square meters in Incheon City ( Address 2 omitted).

(A) According to the records, the plaintiffs asserted that the co-owned property partition claim should be based on the right of co-ownership, which was made at the date of pleading of April 26, 1963. Since the same person stated at the date of pleading of July 29, 1964, the plaintiffs purchased specific portions of the real estate at the preparatory date of February 25, 1965. However, if the former owner purchased specific portions of the land, the plaintiffs were to acquire them by succession. At the preparatory date of pleading of January 14, 1966, it is clear that the court below made a statement that the above part of the land was completely purchased except the above part of the land, and that the above part of the land was a co-owned property partition claim based on the right of co-ownership. Thus, if the above facts were to be asserted, the court below's decision that the above part of the co-owned property should have been purchased by way of the fact that there was no specific co-owners' right of co-ownership, it cannot be viewed that the above part of the right of co-owned property should be divided.

(B) In the case of Incheon City ( Address 2 omitted) 2354, the intervenor's participation in the above 2354 square meters of forest land should be examined as to the legitimacy of the intervenor's participation; the independent party's participation is likely to infringe upon his rights; and the three area of the lawsuit between the previous parties and the intervenor can be resolved without contradiction. According to the records, 2354 square meters of the above forest land were owned by the defendant and 34 square meters of the registration of the plaintiff's participation in the above 43 square meters of the land and the registration of the transfer of the plaintiff's participation in the above 43 square meters of the above 34 square meters of the land were purchased from the defendant and the non-party's share in the above 43 square meters of the registration of the plaintiff's participation in the Incheon City. Accordingly, it is clear that the plaintiff's participation in the above 34 square meters of the plaintiff's share in the above 43 square meters of the registration of the plaintiff's participation in the above 45th of the plaintiff's participation.

(C) The part of the original judgment on each of the above real estate cannot be reversed for the same reason as the above mentioned in the above reasoning. Therefore, the part of the original judgment on each of the above real estate cannot be reversed, and the part of the party intervenor's 2's lawsuit to intervene is unlawful for the above reason without examining his grounds of appeal, and thus, it shall be dismissed, and the remaining cases shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)