(a) Where one year has elapsed after the loss of Korean nationality, whether or not such loss of real estate ownership is owned by the same person;

(b) Relationship between Article 16 of the former Nationality Act (No. 16, 1948) and the former Foreigner's Land Act (No. 42, April 1, 1925)

A. The intervenor must have separate claims against the plaintiff and the defendant who sought to participate, and even if there is a separate claim in form, where there is no benefit to the claim on the other hand, such participation is unlawful.

B. It is reasonable to interpret that Article 16 of the Nationality Act cannot be applied to the right to land pursuant to the former Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (Act No. 42 of Apr. 1, 25), which can be viewed as a special law of the Nationality Act. Thus, a person who loses the nationality of the Republic of Korea cannot be deemed as naturally lose the ownership of land because he did not transfer the ownership of land to the citizens of the Republic of Korea within one year. In addition, even after the lapse of the above one-year period, the ownership of land should not be interpreted as being lost due to the lapse of that period, and it should

Article 12 of the former Nationality Act; Article 16 of the former Nationality Act; Article 4 of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 6 of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 8 of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 7 of the former Foreigner's Land Act; Article 8 of the former

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor of an independent party

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na845 delivered on July 5, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na845 delivered on July 5, 1967

All appeals by the defendant and the independent party intervenor are dismissed.

Of the costs of the appeal, the costs of the appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and those incurred by the appeal by the independent party intervenor shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-sik and Yu-seok, and the grounds of appeal by the defendant's original detention.

According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's transfer of ownership to the above land under the name of the non-party in this case (1957.12.13) is not a legal ground for the transfer of ownership within 1954.6.8, the court below determined that the plaintiff's transfer of ownership to the non-party in this case is not a ground for sale such as the plaintiff's owner, and that the transfer of ownership would not be a legal ground for this case's transfer of ownership to the non-party in this case's land under the name of the non-party in this case's former Nationality Act (No. 16.1948.20) which had been enforced on the premise that the non-party's transfer of ownership to the non-party in this case's land would lose ownership within 6 years after the plaintiff's transfer of ownership to the non-party in this case's land under the above law. According to Article 16 of the same Act, the court below's decision that the non-party's transfer of ownership should be justified within 16 years.

The grounds of appeal by the intervenor of the independent party shall be examined. The independent party intervenor's participation in the case is a party to the lawsuit by a third party who asserts that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or that the right is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit and participates in the lawsuit as a party to the lawsuit without contradictions between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor's rights or legal relations. Thus, the plaintiff's separate claim against the plaintiff and the defendant should be made in a lump sum without contradictions with each other, and even if a separate claim is made in form, if a claim against the plaintiff is not a benefit of the lawsuit, the independent party's participation is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da241 delivered on November 16, 1965). The independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor merely becomes the plaintiff's own right) is not valid due to the cancellation of the contract for real estate sale between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the plaintiff's independent party's assertion that there is no benefit of the plaintiff's transfer contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's title.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)