Whether an independent party intervenor, which is obvious to be dismissed as a requirement non-performance, may intervene in the intervention of one of the parties (affirmative)

Even a person who has participated as an independent party intervenor, when it is obvious that such participation will be dismissed due to its illegality as a requirement not to meet the requirements, the intervention may be subsidized for one of the original and the defendant.

Article 65 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

An intervenor;

Seoul District Court's East Branch [83 Gohap562 (Main Office), 83 Gohap2365 (Indicipant Party)]

The supplementary participation of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is permitted.

All appeals by the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor are dismissed.

The part arising from the intervention of an independent party among the costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

On April 12, 1982, the defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate recorded in the attached list to the plaintiff.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff confirms that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the intervenor.

At the same time, the defendant receives 2,500,000 won from the intervenor, and simultaneously executes the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the transfer contract on April 12, 1982 with respect to the above real estate to the intervenor.

Litigation costs are assessed against both the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. As to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention:

The Intervenor joining the Defendant for the first time during the trial. The Plaintiff participated in the Defendant’s participation on the part of the Defendant. The Intervenor’s Intervenor for the Defendant’s participation on the part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Intervenor’s participation on the part of the Intervenor for the first time before the intervention was made. As such, it is unreasonable for the Intervenor for the Intervenor for the Intervenor for the Intervenor to simultaneously intervene on the part of the Defendant. Thus, even though the Intervenor as an independent party intervenor participated on the part of the Defendant, it is obvious that the intervention would be dismissed on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s participation on the part of the Intervenor for the first time. On the other hand, according to the agreement of April 12, 1982, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land in the annexed list of real estate (hereinafter “instant land”), and as seen thereafter, the Plaintiff’s participation on April 12, 1982 between the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the Nonparty for the Defendant’s participation on the part of the Defendant for the Defendant’s participation for the Defendant’s participation against 1600.

2. With respect to whether an independent party applies for participation:

As a reason for the intervenor's participation, the non-party purchased the land of this case from the defendant on November 7, 1979, but the transfer registration was not completed, but again sold the land of this case to the plaintiff on December 16, 1981, and thus there was a dispute between the parties concerned, and on April 12, 1982, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the intervenor, and the non-party et al. were 3,50,000 won to the defendant until June 10, 1982, and the plaintiff paid 6,50,000 won to the plaintiff, the defendant directly made the transfer registration procedure for the land of this case to the plaintiff, and if the above money was not paid by the above date, the defendant agreed to complete the transfer registration procedure for the ownership transfer registration to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not perform the obligation of the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration as to the land of this case to the plaintiff.

In the case of the Intervenor’s assertion itself, the Intervenor did not acquire the ownership of the instant land because the Intervenor failed to obtain the registration procedure for transfer of the ownership of the instant land, and thus, the Intervenor could not win at least in the relationship with the Plaintiff, and in such a case, the intervention by the independent party is deemed unlawful.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s principal claim:

On April 12, 1982, the above four persons among the disputes between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party on the sale and purchase of the land of this case were the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff paid KRW 3,500,000 to the defendant by June 10, 1982 and KRW 5,60,000 to the defendant, the defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff fails to pay the above amount, the defendant agreed to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff. The above agreement is a sales contract or similar bilateral contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even after the payment of the amount of the above agreement was made, the defendant is liable to implement the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff.

살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증(매매계약서), 갑 제3호증(각서, 을 제2호증과 같다), 갑 제5호증의 2, 3(각 현금보관증), 4(영수증), 을 제1호증(매매계약서), 을 제3호증(매매계약서), 원심증인 소외인의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제5호증의 1(영수증)의 각 기재와 위 증인의 증언 및 당심증인 김정자의 일부증언(뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분제외)에 변론의 전취지를 합쳐보면, 소외인은 1979. 11. 7. 피고로부터 이 사건 토지를 금 18,200,000원에 매수한 후 같은달 20. 피고보조참가인에게 금 20,650,000원에 전매하였으며, 1981. 12. 26.에 이르러서는 이를 다시 원고에게 금 21,000,000원에 2중으로 전매한 사실, 그런데 소외인은 피고에 대하여서는 매매대금중 금 5,500,000원을 지급하지 아니하였고, 피고보조참가인에 대하여서는 1982. 2. 18.경까지 도합 금 10,000,000원을 변제하였을 뿐 계약관계를 마무리 짓지 못하여 원ㆍ피고, 피고보조참가인, 소외인사이에 상호분쟁이 있어온 사실, 그러자 1982. 4. 12.에 이르러 위 4인은, 소외인이 피고에게 지급할 매매잔대금을 금 3,500,000원으로 감액하고, 동 소외인이 피고보조참가인에게 반제하여 계약을 청산할 금액을 금 6,500,000원으로 확정하는 일방, (가) 피고는 1982. 6. 10.까지 금 3,500,000원을 지급받고 원고에게 이 사건 토지에 관한 등기권리증 일체를 양도하며, (나) 원고는 1982. 6. 10.까지 피고보조참가인에게 금 6,500,000원을 지급하고 이 사건 토지를 인수하고, (다) 원고가 피고보조참가인에게 위 날짜까지 위 금원을 지급하지 않을 경우에는 피고가 피고보조참가인에게 이 사건 토지를 이양하기로 합의한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증없으나, 위 인정사실에 의하더라도 1982. 4. 12.자 위 4인의 합의는, 원고주장과 같이 원ㆍ피고간에 새로운 매매계약 또는 그 유사의 쌍무계약을 체결한 것이라고는 보여지지 아니하며, 다만, 원고가 1982. 6. 10.까지 피고와 피고보조참가인에게 위와 같이 합의된 금원을 지급하면 피고는 중간등기를 생략하고 직접 원고에게 이 사건 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하되, 원고가 위 날짜까지 지급하지 아니할 때에는 원고는 더 이상 피고에 대하여 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구할 수 없고 피고는 피고와 소외인간 및 소외인과 피고보조참가인간의 계약이행을 기다려 피고보조참가인에게 중간생략등기를 하겠다는 취지로서, 원고가 위 1982. 4. 12.자 합의에 기하여 피고에게 이 사건 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하기 위하여서는 먼저 피고 및 피고보조참가인에게 위 합의에 따른 금원지급을 선이행하여야 할 것이라고 해석되는바, 나아가 원고가 그의 금원지급의무를 이행하였는가에 대하여 보건대, 이에 부합하는 듯한 당심증인 김정자의 일부증언(앞에서 믿는 부분제외)은 뒤에서 인정하는 바에 비추어 당원이 이를 믿을 수 없고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 위에서 본 증거들과 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증의 1(영수증), 2, 3(각 공탁서), 갑 제6호증(공탁서)의 기재에 변론의 전취지를 합쳐보면, 원고는 위 합의와 동시에 피고에게 금 2,000,0000원을 지급하였으나, 나머지 금원에 대하여는 변제기인 1982. 6. 10.이 경과하도록 그 지급을 지체하다가 위 날짜가 훨씬 경과한 뒤에야 피고에 대한 잔금 1,500,000원을 두번에 나누어 금 1,000,000원을 1983. 2. 19. 서울민사지방법원 83년 금 제 (번호 생략)호로, 금 500,000원을 1984. 1. 16. 같은법원 84년 금 제 (번호 생략)호로 공탁하였고, 피고보조참가인에게 지급할 금 6,500,000원도 1984. 1. 12. 수원지방법원 84년 금 제 (번호 생략)호로 공탁한 사실이 인정될 뿐이다.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless on the premise that the defendant has the right to claim the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the land of this case by performing the obligation to pay money under the agreement of April 12, 1982.

4. Therefore, the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court below shall be just, and the appeal by the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor shall be dismissed with the same conclusion, and all of the appeals by the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor shall be without merit, and the costs of the appeal shall be

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-dam Kim