Whether a party intervenor who has lost his/her entire decision in the first instance court and did not file an appeal may appeal against the judgment of the appellate court which dismissed the defendant's appeal.

In a party intervention lawsuit, the first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and rendered a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff in full, the party intervenor filed an appeal only against the defendant who did not object to the first instance judgment and lost the defendant. However, in a case where the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal in the appellate trial, the party intervenor has no interest in filing an appeal against the above appellate judgment.

Written Note

Maximum Binding Party Intervenor, Appellant Park Han

Busan District Court Decision 74Na441,442 delivered on February 5, 1975

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The appeals by the parties and intervenors shall be dismissed.

Each costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

(1) Judgment on the appeal by a party intervenor;

According to the records, the plaintiff sought an explanation against the defendant on the premise that the building at issue in this case is owned by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the party intervenor sought confirmation that the building belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant on the premise that the building at issue is owned by the party intervenor, and sought an explanation against the defendant on the premise that the building at issue belongs to the party intervenor.

The first instance court acknowledged the above building as the Plaintiff’s ownership, while accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, and ruled that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff was entirely dismissed. However, the Plaintiff did not appeal against this judgment (which was rejected by the first instance court) and only the Defendant who lost the Plaintiff’s claim was lodged an appeal. According to the Defendant’s petition of appeal, the Plaintiff only indicates the Plaintiff as the appellee, and the purport of the appeal is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The costs of appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal are all assessed against the Plaintiff in the first and the second instance court.) and this petition of appeal has been presented and maintained as it is in the original judgment. In this regard, the lower court recognized that the above building was owned by the Plaintiff, and examined only the part against the Defendant, among the first and the judgment of the first instance court, and recognized that the building was owned by the Plaintiff, and indicated as the Plaintiff’s best appeal, the Defendant’s order, and the costs of appeal against the Defendant’s Intervenor are considered as the Defendant’s own interest in this case’s appeal. Accordingly, the lower court’s appeal is unlawful.

(2) Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In light of the records, even if the judgment of the court below is examined, it cannot be viewed that there is an unlawful reason to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on the ground that the building in this case is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant who occupies this building does not have any assertion and proof of legitimate title of possession. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and correct, and the appeal is

Therefore, the costs of each appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)