(a) Requirements for participation by an independent party;

B. Whether a clan can acquire ownership solely on the termination of a title trust agreement in case where the clan has entrusted the real estate to a clan member under its name

A. Inasmuch as an independent party participating in a lawsuit as a third party asserting that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or who asserts that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party, intends to settle in a lump sum without contradictions between the three parties by a single judgment, the intervenor must make a separate claim inconsistent with the principal claim against the original claim against the plaintiff and the defendant who first seeks to participate, and the claim may be established by his/her own claim, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit.

B. A person who received the circumstances under the Forest Survey Ordinance or the Land Investigation Ordinance for the Japanese colonial City shall acquire the ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan was given a trust to the clan members, the title truster shall acquire the ownership, terminate the title trust and claim the registration of ownership transfer in the position of the truster under the title trust contract. Even if the clan terminated the title trust contract, the ownership shall not be acquired unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the truster.

A. Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act. Articles 31 and 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Ho-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Nomenclade et al. and 38

Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in charge of the plaintiff-appellant in charge of the plaintiff-appellant's office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na3344, 3351 decided Oct. 9, 1992

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appellant and Appellee) and parties intervenors are dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal by the defendant, Appellant and Appellee are assessed against the same defendants, and the costs of appeal by the parties' intervenors are assessed against the parties' intervenors.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Appellant and Appellee):

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment below in light of the records, the court below was justified in finding that the land of this case was a clan member under the Joseon Forest Investigation Order on July 27, 1919 under its adopted evidence and was in the name of 6 members, such as the plaintiff's fleet, and that the non-party 1 forged the relevant documents necessary for the preservation of ownership and completed the preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case in the name of a lemon, and there was no error of law in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete deliberation due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for identification. The argument is without merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor:

A. Ground of appeal No.1

An independent party intervention intends to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his own right, or to settle, without contradiction, the conflicting rights or legal relations between three parties by means of a judgment, as a party, participating in a lawsuit as a result of a lawsuit and at the same time by a single judgment. Thus, the intervenor must make a separate claim that is incompatible with the principal claim against the original claim against the plaintiff and the defendant who first seeks to participate, and the claim needs to be established by his own assertion in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993).

According to the records, the plaintiff is seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is the heir of the non-party leapn, who was in charge of the real estate in this case. The intervenor, who was in charge of the above real estate, entrusted the above leapn to six persons, etc. as the part of the intervenor's text, and was under circumstances, requested the confirmation of ownership against the plaintiff and the defendants on the ground that the title trust was terminated later. As seen below, in light of the fact that the property held in title is externally owned by the trustee, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership against the defendants cannot be established by the plaintiff's assertion itself in relation to the defendants. Thus, the participation of the parties in this case is unlawful

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to participation by independent parties, such as theory of lawsuit.

B. Ground of appeal No. 2

A person who was under circumstances pursuant to the Forest Survey Decree or the Land Investigation Ordinance for the Japanese colonial City shall acquire ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan was under circumstances under which it was entrusted to the clan members, the title holder shall acquire ownership, the title truster shall terminate the title trust in the position of the truster pursuant to the title trust contract and may claim the registration of transfer of ownership. Even if the clan terminated the title trust contract, it shall not acquire ownership unless it is completed in the name of the truster (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da10858 delivered on January 25, 191).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the termination of title trust, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by violating the precedents. The precedents pointed out by the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 70Da1215 delivered on September 17, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1694 delivered on December 24, 1974) are the purport that the registration of preservation of ownership, which was made in the name of the heir of the trustee after the title trust of the unregistered real estate was terminated, is null and void, and it is not appropriate in this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)