In a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against Defendant A, and the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration cancellation by subrogation against Defendant B, the case holding that an independent party intervenor's participation in the design of right and participation in private prevention are all unlawful on the grounds that the independent party intervenor's right to claim ownership transfer registration against Defendant B exists.

In a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against Defendant A, and the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration cancellation by subrogation against Defendant B, the case holding that an independent party intervenor's participation in the design of right and participation in private prevention are all unlawful on the grounds that the independent party intervenor's right to claim ownership transfer registration against Defendant B exists.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appointment Uniforms

Senior Delegate and four others

Seoul District Court Decision 201Na14888 decided May 1, 201

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na4883,90Na4890 decided September 28, 1990 (Intervention)

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal by the intervenor of an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " intervenor") shall be examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though the intervenor has the right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership against the remaining Defendants except for the defendant appointed by the defendant, such reasons alone cannot be deemed as a legal interest in seeking confirmation that the intervenor has such right to claim against the plaintiff and the defendant appointed by the defendant. In addition, since the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership against the remaining Defendants of the defendant appointed by the original owner of the above land and the plaintiff's claim for the execution of the registration of transfer of ownership against the plaintiff's remaining Defendants is not a separate claim that cannot be compatible, the intervenor's participation in the principal of right is illegal, and the plaintiff's claim for the execution of the registration of transfer of ownership against the above remaining Defendants is not a separate claim, and the plaintiff's participation in the prevention of corruption has no objective evidence that the plaintiff and the defendants have the intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)