Qualifications for participation by an independent party;

A third party who asserts that the whole or part of the object of a lawsuit between others is his own right, or who asserts that the right is infringed by the result of a lawsuit, may participate in the lawsuit independently as a party. However, as a result of the party's participation, it is intended to settle the conflicting rights or legal common sense between the plaintiff and the defendant and the third party of the intervenor as a single judgment and to confirm it jointly without contradiction, the intervenor must have separate claims against the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if a separate claim exists in form, if there is no benefit of the lawsuit, the intervention by the independent party is unlawful.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

66Da1021,1022 delivered on July 26, 1966, 65Da1574 and 1575 delivered on October 5, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1620 delivered on August 16, 196, Article 72(21) of the Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 1300 delivered on July 26, 1966, Article 72(28), Article 71574 delivered on December 24, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 748 delivered on December 748, 196, Article 72(35) of the Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 69Da7374 delivered on February 10, 1970, Article 72(35) of the summary and summary of the Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 414Da414 delivered on April 18, 198, Article 62741 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

1 other than the country

A clan Intervenor

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (66A139)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The proceedings of a party intervenor shall be dismissed.

Defendant 2, on December 30, 1955, on the 15th 15th 5-15th 524th Do-ri, North Changwon-gun, Changwon-gun, Changwon-gun, Defendant 2 implemented the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 24, 1956 on the said land.

Of the litigation costs, the part that was born between the plaintiff and the defendants shall be borne by the defendants, and the part that was born by the participation shall be borne by the intervenor.

The plaintiff's attorney is seeking the purport as ordered and the decision that the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the defendant's litigation performer is seeking each dismissal decision of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's claim and the defendant 2 is dismissed.

A party intervenor shall revoke the part against the intervenor in the original judgment.

The defendant country will implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the repayment on December 30, 1955 with respect to the land entered in the order to the defendant 2, the defendant country will implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale made on February 24, 1956 to the intervenor.

The plaintiff delivers the above land to the intervenors and supplies 8,000 liters (liter).

When it is impossible to execute the above refining, 120,000 won shall be paid per 200 liter (liter) calculated as 3,000 won.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution on the above 3 and 4.

First of all, the third party asserting that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit between the intervenor and the plaintiff is his own right or is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit shall be entitled to participate in the lawsuit as a party. However, it is intended to resolve without contradiction the conflicting rights or legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant and the third party due to the intervention of the party. Thus, even though the intervenor has separate claims against the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no separate claim in form, if there is no interest in the lawsuit, the independent party shall be deemed to be illegal. In this case, as to the fact that the defendant 2 received the land indicated in the text (hereinafter referred to as this case's land title) and completed the repayment on December 30, 195, the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration against the defendant's non-performance of the lawsuit against the plaintiff's plaintiff's non-performance of the lawsuit against the plaintiff's non-performance of the plaintiff's rights against the plaintiff's non-performance of the plaintiff's rights against the plaintiff's non-performance of the plaintiff's rights against the plaintiff's non-performance of this part.

Next, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that Defendant 2 received a share of this case and completed repayment of this case on December 30, 1955, and that the plaintiff cultivated this land. In full view of the entries of subparagraphs 2 through 5, and the purport of the pleading in the testimony of Nonparty 1 without dispute, the plaintiff purchased this land from Nonparty 2 of the court below on March 24, 1956 and paid the above full amount to the plaintiff's 83,840 won. The testimony of subparagraphs 1 through 6 and the court below did not interfere with the above recognition, and it cannot be found that the plaintiff's agent knew that it was legitimate to purchase this land under the name of the plaintiff's witness of this clan because the plaintiff's agent did not purchase the above land under the name of the defendant's title, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's agent did not purchase the above land under the name of the plaintiff's witness of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified, and the original judgment has been rejected with its purport different from that of the original judgment, so it is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 93, and 89 of the same Act as to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-won Park Park-sik