[1] The requirements for participation in the proposal of right under the former part of Article 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] The case holding that where the intervenor asserted that the title truster of the target real estate was the intervenor himself/herself and sought cancellation of the registration of transfer on the ground of termination of title trust against the trustee among the defendants, and the remaining defendants filed a claim for confirmation that the plaintiff and the defendants were the title truster, where the plaintiff and the defendants were the title truster, such participation in the title truster is unlawful

[3] The requirements for participation in prevention of harm under the latter part of Article 72 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[4] The case holding that an application for participation in the prevention of corruption is unlawful

[1] An independent party participating in a lawsuit intends to claim that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that he/she is entitled to infringement by the result of the lawsuit as a party to the lawsuit and resolve in a lump sum without inconsistency between the two parties by a single judgment, so the intervenor shall make a separate claim inconsistent with the principal claim against the original claim against the plaintiff and the defendant who is to participate in the lawsuit, and the claim may be established by its own claim, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit.

[2] The case holding that, in case where the intervenor filed a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the cancellation of title trust with respect to the plaintiff clan's claim for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that the plaintiff clan held title trust with the defendant among the defendants, the heir, on the ground that the plaintiff clan held title trust with one of the defendants, and sought the cancellation of the registration of preservation on the ground that the registration was made illegally against the remaining defendants, and at the same time, the plaintiff and the defendants filed a claim for the confirmation that the plaintiff and the defendants held title trust with the above deceased to the above deceased, the plaintiff's claim is directly sought the registration of transfer on the premise that the plaintiff's claim was held in title trust with the defendants, and the plaintiff and the defendants' claim is made on the premise that the above plaintiff's claim was held in title trust with the above deceased, and the plaintiff's claim is not a claim that all or part of the principal claim of lawsuit

[3] It is objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant have the intent to harm the intervenor through a lawsuit, and the lawsuit is justified if it is found that the plaintiff and the defendant's intent to harm the intervenor's rights or legal status are likely to be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit.

[4] The case holding that the intervenor's application for intervention in the prevention of corruption is unlawful on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that there is doubt that the plaintiff's assertion appears false or not to be true in light of the contents of the party's assertion and the evidentiary materials presented in the lawsuit, or that there is no more emphasis on the plaintiff's realization of his own rights or the defendant's lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude other right holders against the defendant rather than being raised as a means

[1] Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 72

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da4852, 48569 delivered on May 28, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 1277) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da20426, 2043 delivered on August 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3253), Supreme Court Decision 96Da2549, 25456 delivered on June 10, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2125) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 95Da2795, 22801 delivered on March 8, 199 (Gong196, 196) 2000Da12075279 delivered on August 24, 2001

[Defendant-Appellee] H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

Defendant 1 and 42 others

Hamyeong-gun (Attorney Lee Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na61946, 61953 delivered on May 12, 199

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the independent party intervenor.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment after compiling the evidence adopted, and based on the facts acknowledged as to the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "family intervenor"), since the participation by the title truster is a third party who asserts all or part of the purpose of the lawsuit between the third party as a party to the lawsuit and seeks to settle without inconsistency in time by a single judgment, it is necessary that the intervenor's claim is not compatible with the claim of the plaintiff and the defendant in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit, and it is not compatible with the claim of the clan. Meanwhile, since the person who received the circumstance pursuant to the Land Investigation Ordinance of Japan acquired the ownership of the plaintiff's property from the original and original clan, even if the title truster acquired the ownership of the defendant's property from the title truster, and the title truster cannot claim cancellation of the title trust of the clan as the title truster's title trustee, and as long as the ownership registration of the defendant's title trust was not completed in the name of the non-party to the clan, the title truster and the defendant's title trust cannot be registered.

B. However, according to the records, while submitting an application for intervention on March 9, 1998 to the first instance court, it is confirmed that the plaintiff and the defendants alleged the purport of the application is the ownership of the independent party intervenor. The defendant 3 stated that the plaintiff and the defendant are the independent party intervenor. The defendant 1 stated that the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination of the trust on the last date of delivery of the application for intervention of the case with respect to one-eight of the above real estate, and the remaining defendants stated that the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above real estate among the above real estate completed on December 12, 1970 by Suwon District Court Registry of Gwangju, 15130 (Records 1:570 pages), and that the plaintiff and the defendant stated that the plaintiff's real estate was the independent party's claim for cancellation of the title trust claim (the remaining purport of the appeal filed on November 7, 1998, which is the plaintiff's claim for correction of the title trust claim No. 97, which is the plaintiff's claim for correction of title trust claim No. 164.

Therefore, the intervenor filed a claim for confirmation of ownership of each real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") listed in the separate sheet in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the ownership of each real estate in the separate sheet in the court below (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") belongs to the clans inside and outside of the country, and the appellate court corrected this claim and confirmed that "the plaintiff and the defendants confirmed that the real estate of this case are the property trusted to the deceased non-party 1 as an independent party intervenor's ownership" was clearly a claim for confirmation of the obligatory right, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the plaintiff and the defendants sought confirmation of the claim

C. An independent party intervention intends to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that the subject matter of a lawsuit is infringed upon by the outcome of a lawsuit as a party, and then resolve in a lump sum without contradiction between the two parties by a single judgment, so that the intervenor shall make a separate claim that is incompatible with the principal claim against the original claim against the plaintiff and the defendant who first seeks to participate, and the claim may be established by the assertion itself, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da48552, 48569, May 28, 1999).

However, in this case, the plaintiff's assertion was made against the deceased non-party 1 ("the first title trust of this case" for convenience), but around December 12, 1970, about the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the second title trust (the first title trust of this case is presumed to have been terminated or terminated) to the defendant 3 and 7, which is a clan, (the second title trust of this case). The intervenor's assertion seems to be premised upon the premise that the plaintiff 1 and 7 were illegally registered with the deceased non-party 1, around 1970, and that the non-party 1 and the defendant 6's claim for the registration of title trust of this case was not made against the plaintiff 9 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's claim for the registration of title trust of this case against the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the heir of this case, and the non-party 2, the plaintiff 9 and the defendant 1, the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1, who were not the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 9.

Therefore, although the court below erred in the misapprehension of the purport of the purport of the purport of the intervenor's clan, it is just in its conclusion to reject the intervenor's participation in the clan on the ground that the intervenor's participation in the clan is unlawful, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as omission of reasons in the judgment, conflict with the previous Supreme Court precedents, omission of judgment, and non-exercise of the right to

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. On the part of the intervenor's application for intervention in the prevention of damage to the clan, the court below held that the intervenor's application for intervention in the prevention of damage to the clan is unlawful on the ground that it objectively recognizes that the plaintiff's clan and the defendants have the intention to harm the clan through the lawsuit of this case, and that the intervenor's right or legal status may be infringed upon as a result of the lawsuit of this case. However, in this case, which appears to be legitimate exercise of the plaintiff's clan, there is no evidence to objectively recognize that the plaintiff's clan and the defendants expressed their intent to harm the clan, and therefore, the intervenor's application

In light of the records, among the defendants 43, there is no evidence to prove that only the plaintiff 4, 5, 15, 18, 19, 20, 217, among the defendants, the land of this case is owned by a clan, and the remaining defendants are passive measures, such as not recognizing or opposing the plaintiff's assertion. However, there is a doubt that the plaintiff's assertion is false or not true in light of the contents of the parties' assertion and the supporting materials taken place in the lawsuit, or there is no more emphasis on the plaintiff's assertion or the defendants' exclusion of other right holders against the defendants rather than being raised as a means of realizing their rights or securing their legal status. Such fact-finding and decision of the court below are justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of experience and logic, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)