A. Whether an intervenor's claim and the plaintiff's claim are compatible, but an independent party participation under the latter part of Article 72 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act can be made (affirmative)

B. Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of a juristic act which is the cause of a claim for a fraudulent action against others in a case where his own rights or legal status is likely to be infringed as a result of a fraudulent action between others (affirmative)

A. In the case of participation in the prevention of death under the latter part of Article 72 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, in a case where the rights or legal status of a third party are likely to be infringed as a result of an action for death, that third party may participate in the action to prevent a judgment that will be rendered as a result of such action in order to prevent such infringement, so it is objectively objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have an intention to harm the third party through the lawsuit in question, and where it is deemed that the rights or legal status of a third party is likely to be infringed as a result of such action, an independent party participation can be made even if the claim of the third party and the plaintiff's claim are in a relationship mutually compatible with the logic.

B. In a case where the legal status of one’s own rights or legal status is likely to be infringed as a result of an piracy lawsuit in which the cause of the claim is the cause of the claim, demanding the confirmation that the juristic act, which caused the claim against the other party, is null and void, is an effective and appropriate means to prevent the infringement of one’s rights or legal status upon the declaration and enforcement of the judgment of piracy judgment, and thus, there is a legitimate interest in the confirmation.

A. Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu25274, 25281 Decided April 27, 1989 (Gong1990, 1147). Supreme Court Decision 86Da148, 86Da762, 87Da149, 86Da763, 86Da150, 86Meu764 Decided March 8, 198 (Gong198, 651)

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and four others, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4, Attorney Jung-young

[Defendant-Appellee] Jinsung Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-Appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na39223, 39230 Decided June 21, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor,

According to the records, the lawsuit of this case was filed against the defendants for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on July 1, 1985 with respect to each of the co-ownership of the land of this case. The lawsuit of this case was filed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and the defendants were owned by the intervenor in title trust with the non-party deceased, who is the defendant's predecessor. The plaintiff and the defendants were aware of this fact, in collusion with each other for the purpose of impairing the plaintiff's clan, and entered into a sale contract on July 1, 1985 for the purpose of impairing the plaintiff's clan. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, and the defendants clearly recognized all of the plaintiff's arguments in the process of the lawsuit, and they are bound to obtain the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The above sale contract is a fraudulent act for the execution of the right of the plaintiff and the defendants' ownership transfer registration for each of the plaintiff and the defendant's main reasons for the execution of the sale contract to the plaintiff and the defendant's ownership transfer registration for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the independent party participation in the lawsuit of this case in the lawsuit of this case is compatible with the legal relationship between the three parties in a uniform manner, and thereby preventing the intervenor's infringement of rights. Thus, the intervenor's claims against both the plaintiff and the defendant have interests in each lawsuit, while the legal relationship between the three parties is at least in the execution of the judgment. The intervenor's lawsuit for nullification and revocation of the above sales contract against the defendants is without interest in the lawsuit, and the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration due to the above sales contract against the defendants and the transfer of ownership due to the above trust against the defendants against the defendants of this case is compatible with the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration due to the plaintiff's above sale and the transfer of ownership due to the above trust against

However, the latter part of Article 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a third party who asserts that a right shall be infringed upon by the result of a lawsuit may participate in the lawsuit as a party. This provision provides that if the right holder participation under the former part of Article 72(1) may be infringed upon by the third party's right or legal status as a result of a fraudulent lawsuit because it is different from the case of a right holder participation under the former part of the same Article, the third party may participate in the fraudulent lawsuit in order to prevent a judgment that shall be rendered final and conclusive as a result of the fraudulent lawsuit. Thus, it is objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have an intention to harm the third party through the lawsuit, and if it is deemed that the third party's right or legal status may be infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit, even if the claim of the third party and the plaintiff's claim are in a relationship mutually compatible (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da25274, 25281 delivered on April 27, 190).

In addition, in a case where one's own rights or legal status is likely to be infringed as a result of an piracy lawsuit that causes a claim between others, seeking confirmation that a juristic act which causes a claim for piracy lawsuit against others is null and void is an appropriate means to prevent a violation of one's own rights or legal status by the final and conclusive judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the independent party intervenor for prevention of piracy has legitimate interest in confirmation to seek confirmation of invalidity of a juristic act that causes a claim for piracy lawsuit against the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, without examining whether the court below objectively recognized the defendants' intent to harm the intervenor through the performance of the lawsuit against the defendants, and without examining whether the defendants' rights or legal status are likely to be infringed as a result of that lawsuit, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for prevention of piracy lawsuit by the independent party, and this constitutes grounds for appeal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)