Subjectly, preliminary consolidation is not allowed.

Subjectly, preliminary consolidation is not allowed.

Article 61 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Busan City and one other

Busan District Court Decision 71Na510 delivered on April 11, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

(1) According to the plaintiff's main claim ex officio, the defendant Busan City made a preliminary claim against the plaintiff at the rate of KRW 534,596 and KRW 2,000 per annum from January 1, 1972 to the time when the land entered in the list of the original judgment is ordered. According to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the defendant Busan and the defendant Republic of Korea jointly filed a preliminary claim against the plaintiff at the rate of KRW 918,480 per annum and KRW 2,00 per annum from January 1, 1972 to the time when the name of the above land is completed.

Therefore, since there is no primary claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and only a conjunctive claim, so the plaintiff's primary primary claim is combined with the defendant Republic of Korea. Thus, whether or not there is a judgment as to the propriety of the claim against the defendant's primary primary joint claim, which is the defendant of such subjective joint claim, is decided according to the result of the judgment as to the primary claim against the defendant Busan City. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's unilateral protection is unfair despite the fact that the response as the Republic of Korea is remarkably in a disadvantage and safety in the response lawsuit, and if it is separated from the above subjective preliminary joint claim, it cannot be said that it becomes a conditional lawsuit and it cannot be deemed an illegal lawsuit. Thus, such subjective preliminary joint claim cannot be permitted, even though it is under the premise that the court below's decision as to the main claim for the dismissal of the claim, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the preliminary claim.

(In accordance with the reasons for the claim, there is no doubt as to whether the plaintiff is not a subjective conjunctive merger claim, and therefore, the court below should clarify it as a tinbing.)

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the original judgment, the lower court recognized the following facts.

In other words, in order for the United Kingdom army dispatched to Korea to be used as the access road to the station of the United Nations Army at the time of the incident, the land was opened and used as the access road to the original judgment attached to the original judgment, which was owned by the plaintiff, in order to be used as the access road to the station of the military unit. At the same time, the military unit of the above UK had taken over the land of the plaintiff group at the same time, used it as the access road to the said unit, and at the same time, the above land was used as the above land as well. On August 1968, the above Korean unit of the Republic of Korea had been established as a different place, and since August 1961, the road was constructed as a more official road between the residents of the Busan City and the general public, and since 1961, the road was constructed as the road to be a more official map and the road was built as the road to be wide from May 30 to 7, 1970.

Thus, according to the above facts of finding the court below, there is no question as to whether the land owned by the plaintiff at least is actually occupied and managed as a road from May 31, 1970. Thus, even if the defendant Busan City does not have any problem as to whether it is actually in possession of the land owned by the plaintiff, it is necessary to make a further deliberation and determination. Despite this, the plaintiff's assertion of the plaintiff in possession management as a de facto road is rejected on the ground that there is no construction announcement of the road as to the actual road, or that there is no so-called formal requirement that it is not incorporated as a road within the land readjustment project zone, or that there is no error of law of misunderstanding the plaintiff's president. Thus, the decision on other grounds of appeal

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)