The requirements of party participation lawsuit

In a case where a party intervention is likely to assert that the whole or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit between others is his own right or infringe upon his own right by the result of a lawsuit, and it is recognized that the three-area litigation relationship between the previous parties or the previous parties and the intervenor can be resolved in a lump sum without contradiction. Thus, even if the intervenor's assertion itself can not be considered as a part of the intervenor's assertion and it is impossible for the intervenor to win against the defendant, the part of the

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant-Appellant Park Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Intervenor of a Party

Daegu High Court Decision 77Na1054, 79Na561 Decided January 18, 1980

1. The part based on the participation of parties in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the application for participation by the parties shall be dismissed;

The total costs of litigation incurred by the intervention of the parties shall be borne by the intervenor.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. First of all, ex officio whether the intervention of the party is legitimate, and the participation of the party is likely to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit between others is his own right or infringe upon his own right by the result of the lawsuit, and the three-area litigation relationship between the previous parties or the previous parties can be resolved at one time without contradiction by a judgment. However, in the case where the intervenor cannot win the defendant, even if the intervenor can win the lawsuit against the defendant in view of the intervenor's own assertion itself, it shall be deemed that the party's participation does not meet the requirements for participation.

According to the plaintiff's claim, the fourth parcel of land of this case was donated to the plaintiff in summary, and since the title trust registration was terminated on February 12, 1973, the title trust registration was made to the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff's claim, the fourth parcel of land of this case was farmland distributed to the defendant by the non-party 1, the original part of the plaintiff's assistance, and the fourth parcel of land of this case was the land of which the non-party 2 was transferred to the defendant on April 30, 1963, the above non-party 2 had the title trust registered to the defendant on February 12, 1973, and the registration of ownership transfer was terminated on the above part of the defendant's non-party 3, and it was clear that the title trust registration was terminated on the part of the non-party 1, the title trust registration of this case was terminated on the part of the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 1, the title trust registration of this case was terminated on June 27, 1964.

Therefore, even if the intervenor can win the relation with the defendant, the plaintiff can not assert the transfer of the land in the relation with the plaintiff, unless the registration of the intervenor's name is made due to the termination of the trust or the donation, so the plaintiff cannot assert the transfer of the land. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for intervention does not meet the requirements that the above three area litigation relations should be resolved by one judgment without contradiction.

Nevertheless, there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the participation of the parties in the principal case on the premise that the court below satisfied the requirements, and thus, the part concerning the participation of the parties in the original judgment (the part concerning the participation in the party) is reversed, and this case is deemed sufficient to be directly judged by the party members. Therefore, the application for participation of the parties in the original judgment shall be dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful ( therefore, it is unnecessary to determine the grounds of appeal as to the participation of the intervenors and the defendant

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined as follows.

In light of the records, the court below's 4 pieces of land of this case, which constitute the important part of the plaintiff's assertion, was originally distributed farmland by the deceased non-party 1 to the plaintiff, who is the south of the original city, and the land entered in the list 4 at the original city was donated to the plaintiff. The land stated in the 1st through 3th above was donated to the non-party 3 who is South and North Korea, and the above non-party 5 and non-party 4, who were joint heir as his parents, again donated to the plaintiff. However, as to the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership was entrusted to the defendant's name with three South and North Korea at each time of the registration of transfer of ownership, the evidence of this case's 3th certificate (written certification) cannot be trust, or it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff's statement of the above 1 and 2th certificate was not sufficient to prove that there was any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's right's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion of this case was without merit or merit.

3. Accordingly, the part due to the intervention of the parties in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the application for intervention shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)