Requirements for action by an independent party

Even if the intervenor is in a position to seek the registration of ownership transfer of the land in question as a result of purchase against the plaintiff, if the intervenor can make any claim on behalf of the plaintiff in relation to the defendant, then the plaintiff already exercises such right against the defendant. If the intervenor cannot subrogate the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff cannot make any other legitimate claim against the defendant, the lawsuit by the intervenor is unlawful.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

An intervenor;

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana6764) of the first instance court

(1) dismiss the action of an independent party intervenor.

(2) Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

(3) The original judgment between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 is modified as follows.

(4) 피고 1은 원고에 대하여 별지목록기재 부동산에 관하여 서울민사지방법원 서대문등기소 1956.1.9. 접수 제407호로서 경료한 1941.5.10.자 매매에 인한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하고, 서울특별시 서대문구 수색동 106의 19 대지 및 동동 106의 17 대지 양지상에 세워진 목조스레트즙 평가건 점포 1동 건평 8평 4홉중 별지도면표시 ㄴ,ㅅ,ㄹ',ㅂ",ㄴ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉯부분 건평 5평2홉, 위 양 대지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 점포 1동 건평 4평 5홉중 동 도면표시 ㅂ",ㄹ',ㅇ,ㅈ',ㅇ",ㄷ,ㅂ"의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉰부분 건평 3평 7홉 및 동소 106의 19 대지 동소 106의 14 대지 및 동소 106의 17 대지 3지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주방 및 물치장 1동 건평 6평 3홉중 동 도면표시 ㄹ,ㅇ",ㅁ",ㅊ,ㅋ,ㅌ',ㄷ",ㄹ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉱부분 건평 3평 4홉 및 동 도면표시 ㅊ,ㅁ",ㅊ',ㅋ',ㅊ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내의 부분 건평 4홉, 동소 106의 19 대지중의 동 도면표시 ㅌ',ㅋ',ㅋ,ㄴ",ㅌ'의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉲부분 지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주방 및 물치장 1동 건평 2평, 동소 106의 19,동소 106의 9, 동소 106의 5,동소 106의 10의 4 지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 13평 6홉중 동 도면 표시 ㅅ",ㅍ',ㄴ",ㅌ,ㅅ"의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉳부분 건평 4평을 각 철거하고 별지목록기재의 부동산을 인도하여 금 1,241,195원 및 1969.1.1.부터 별지목록기재의 토지인도 완료일까지 매년 금 312,675원의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급하라.

(5) The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant 1 are dismissed.

(6) The costs of appeal arising from the intervention shall be borne by the intervenor and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant 2, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall bear five equal costs and four equal costs, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1)The plaintiff shall amend the purport of the claim in the trial.

(1) As to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1

(A) On the real estate recorded in the attached list, the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is implemented on May 10, 1941, which was completed as the Seodaemun District District Court Registry No. 407 of January 9, 1965.

(나)서울특별시 서대문구 수색동 106의 19 대지 및 동동 106의 17 대지 양지상에 세워진 목조스트레즙 평가건 점포 1동 건평 8평 4홉중 별지도면표시 ㄴ,ㅅ,ㄹ',ㅂ",ㄴ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉯부분 건평5평 2홉 위 양 대지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 점포 1동 건평 4평 5홉중 동 도면표시 ㅂ",ㄹ',ㅇ,ㅈ',ㅇ",ㄷ,ㅂ"의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉰부분 건평 3평 7홉 및 동소 106의 19 대지 동소 106의 14 및 106의 17 대지 3지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주방 및 물치장 1동 건평 6평 3홉중 동 도면표시 ㄹ,ㅇ",ㅁ",ㅊ,ㅋ',ㅌ',ㄷ",ㄹ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉱부분 건평 3평 4홉 및 동 도면표시 ㅊ,ㅁ",ㅊ',ㅋ',ㅊ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내의 부분 건평 4홉, 동소 106의 19대지중의 동 도면표시 ㅌ',ㅋ',ㅋ,ㄴ",ㅌ'의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내인 ㉲부분 지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주방 및 물치장 1동 건평 2평,동소 106의 19, 동소 106의 9, 동소 106의 5, 동소 106의 10의 4 지상에 세워진 세멘부록조 세멘와즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 13평 6홉중 동 도면표시 ㅅ",ㅍ',ㄴ",ㅌ,ㅅ"의 각 점을 순차 연결한 ㉳부분 건평 4평을 각 철거하고 별지목록 기재의 부동산을 인도하며 금 5,676,993원 및 1969.1.1.부터 별지목록기재 대지의 인도완료일까지 매년 금 1,761,750원의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급하라.

(2) As to the Plaintiff, Defendant 2:

On May 14, 1965, the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage due to a contract to establish a mortgage as of April 23, 1965 between the person who created the right to collateral security and Defendant 1, who established the right to collateral security, which was completed as No. 14029 of May 14, 1965 with respect to 19 to 21 of the Dong-dong 106, Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 106-14, 106.

(3) To seek a provisional execution only with respect to the above land transfer and money payment, the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

(a)A party intervenor against the intervenor

(1) Defendant 1

(a)Implementation the procedure to register cancellation of the registration of the meter under (a) (1) above, in which the real estate recorded in the attached list has been completed;

(나) 위 (일)의 (1)의 (나)기재의 ㉯부분 건평 5평 2홉, ㉰부분 건평 3평 7홉. ㉱부분 건평 3평 4홉. 별지도면표시 ㅊ,ㅁ",ㅊ',ㅋ',ㅊ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내부분 건평 4홉, ㉲부분 지상 건물 건평 2평 및 ㉳부분 건평 4평을 각 철거하고

(c)on delivery of the land in the Schedule.

(2) Defendant 2:

(2) implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the nearest mortgage mentioned in paragraph (2) above.

(3)The plaintiff shall implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership due to sale on May 20, 1946 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

(4)The cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiff, the defendant, etc.

(1) Whether the intervenor of the independent party is lawful

On May 20, 1946, the intervenor contributed 60,000 won to the non-party 1 together with each other on May 20, 1946, and purchased 12,000 Won of the land owned by the plaintiff in Seodaemun-gu search Dong in Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, including the original land in the separate sheet, from the plaintiff on May 20, 1946. The intervenor agreed that the plaintiff and the above non-party will occupy half of the purchase land (this land is included in the land that the plaintiff is decided to occupy as the intervenor), and that the plaintiff's witness and the above non-party agree to register the transfer of ownership pursuant to the sale of the above land under the exclusive name of the plaintiff, and the registration of ownership transfer has been made without any cause as to the main land in the separate sheet, and the registration of ownership transfer has been made without any cause as to the real estate in the name of the defendant 1, as to the real estate in the name of the non-party 1, and the defendant's title and title 2, including the claim.

As to Defendant 1, the intervenor sought the cancellation of the above transfer registration of ownership, the removal of the above autopsy and the transfer of the original land, and sought the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer as to Defendant 2, and sought the cancellation of the above establishment registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case (the extinctive prescription of the above right to claim ownership transfer registration is run from January 1, 1966 in accordance with the Civil Code, so that the right to claim ownership transfer registration did not go against the extinctive prescription).

However, even if the intervenor legally purchased the land of this case and assumed that it is in a position to make a legitimate claim for ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff, as alleged by the intervenor, this alone does not mean that the intervenor is entitled to make a claim against the defendant, etc. immediately, but it appears that the intervenor can make such a claim against the defendant, etc. in the event that the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff, only by subrogation of the plaintiff, if it is owned by the plaintiff, and it is obvious that the plaintiff already exercised such rights against the defendant. In this case, it is obvious that the plaintiff has already been able to exercise such rights against the defendant (it is not that the plaintiff can not be subrogated by subrogation of the plaintiff in lieu of the plaintiff). Accordingly, in this case, it is obvious that the intervenor cannot make a legitimate claim against the defendants by the intervenor itself, and therefore, the lawsuit against the plaintiff's intervention in this case is unlawful, and therefore the safety objection of this purport is justified.

As such, the intervenor's principal lawsuit shall be dismissed if it is not necessary to add other issues.

(2) Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant, etc.

According to the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by Nonparty 2 at the trial on each entry in the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 9, 6-1, 2, 4 (each copy of registration), and 5 (each copy of land register), each entry in the evidence Nos. 1-2, 6-2, 4 (each copy of land register), and 5 (the copy of land register) in the separate sheet, each entry in the separate sheet can be recognized as having the same fact as the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 1 with respect to the land in the separate sheet (the land in Seoul, Seodaemun-gu 106-14 and 106-19 is divided into 135 square meters) in the separate sheet.

그리고 위 갑호 각증 및 을호 각증의 각 기재에 각 그 성립에 다툼없는 갑 제4호증의 1,2, 갑 제9호증, 갑 제10호증, 갑 제11호증, 을 제8호증의 1,2, 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제2호증의 각 기재 [각 그 성립에 다툼없는 갑 제4호증의 3, 갑 제4호증의 4, 갑 제5호증, 갑 제12호증, 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 을 제3호증의 1, 을 제8호증의 6, 을 제9호증의 4, 을 제3호증의 6, 을 제3호증의 7, 을 제3호증의 8, 을 제9호증의 1, 을 제6호증, 을 제7호증의 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, 을 제8호증의 3,4, 을 제9호증의 2, 을 제11호증 각 그 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제3호증, 을 제2호증의 2, 을 제3호증의 5, 을 제8호증의 5, 을 제8호증의 3,원심증인 소외 3의 증언에 의하여 성립이 인정되는 을 제3호증의 2의 각 기재 일부(단 이[]안의 전 서증의 기재와 을 제3호증의 3, 을 제8호증의 7, 을 제9호증의 5의 각 기재중 아래에서 인정하는 사실에 부합되지 아니하는 부분은 본원이 믿지 아니한다)]에 원심증인 소외 4의 증언, 원심에서 한 원고 본인 신문결과와 [원심증인 소외 5, 6, 7(1,2회), 소외 8, 당심증인 소외 9, 참가인, 소외 1의 각 증언 일부(단 이[]안의 전 증인의 증언중 아래에서 인정하는 사실에 부합되지 아니하는 부분은 본원이 믿지 아니한다)] 및 당사자 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 별지목록기재의 본건 토지들은 원고소유이던 것으로서 원래가 모두 농경작지(답)였고 농지개혁법 시행당시인 1949.6.21. 당시에도 모두가 경지(답)였고 농지개혁법 시행당시에도 모두가 농경지이고 현재 그 지상에 위에서 설시한 본건 계쟁건물이 있을 뿐 다른 건물은 없었는데 본건 계쟁건물도 농지개혁법 시행후인 1962년경에 피고 1이 건립하여 동 건물이 현재도 피고 1의 소유인 사실, 원고가 농지개혁법 시행당시에 자경하지 아니하였으며 다만 1941.5.경 원고와 소외 한국운수주식회사(그 당시에는 상호가 조선운수주식회사이고 이것이 국내법인임)와의 간에 매매이야기가 있었던 것같이 보여지나 실제로는 매매되지 아니하였으며(위 소외 회사가 매수하였다는 확고한 증거가 없다) 위 소외 회사 수색출장소의 노무주임이던 소외 7이 1945.경부터 이를 모경하고 있다가 1962.5.경 피고 1에게 그 지상의 작물과 경작권을 함부로 매도하고 위 매도일에 본건 토지를 동 피고에게 인도하여 그때부터 동 피고가 이를 점유하고 있는 사실, 농지개혁법이 시행된 10여년후인 1960.5.26.에 이르러 소외 7이 이를 농지로서 분배받아 보려고 당국에 농지분배 신청을 하였으나 그 신청이 각하되고 누구에게도 이가 분배처분되지 아니하고 있던중 1964.8.14.자로 건설부 고시 제1031로서 본건 토지가 도시계획법에 따른 주거지 및 준공업지구로 지정된 사실, 피고 1은 본건 토지에 관하여 자기가 소유권취득 또는 시효취득하였다고 하여 일반농지의 소유권이전등기에관한특별조치법(법률 제1657호)에 의한 등기신청을 하여 원고로부터 동 피고명의로 본건 토지에 관하여 위에 적은 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 위에 배척한 증거외에 이 인정에 저촉되는 을 제3호증의 4, 을 제9호증의 6, 을 제8호증의 8, 을 제10호증의 각 기재들은 본원이 믿지 아니하는바 갑 제7호증, 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 3(이것은 1966.6.20.에 촬영하였다는 것임), 을 제12호증의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 10의 증언등이 위 인정에 방해되지 않음은 물론 그밖에 위 인정을 뒤집을 증거없다.

However, the defendant et al. asserted that the above non-party corporation purchased the land of this case from the plaintiff on May 10, 1941 and purchased the land of this case from the non-party company on July 20, 1945, and that the non-party 7 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 7 on May 5, 1962 and that the non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 7 on May 5, 1962 on May 10, 1961 under the premise that the land of this case was delivered to the purchaser at each time of the sale, and the acquisition period of the land of this case was completed for 20 years on May 10, 1961 (the non-party 7 acquired the ownership of this case and then sold this case to the defendant 1). Thus, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 7 purchased the land of this case and sold the farmland of this case to the above defendant in light of the objective attitude of possession.

In addition, as between the police officer of May 1963 and May 10, 1965, Defendant 1 invested 2,238,600,000 won in this case and buried 2,220,000 won in this case's land, and the right of retention defense is acknowledged as a claim claim claim, but it is not a legitimate right to possess this case's land as seen above, and there is no evidence to prove it other than the above fact that the Defendant buried this case's land, and there is no evidence to prove it other than the above fact that the principal officer believed to have filled this case's land.

Therefore, this case's land is purchased at the same time with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the plaintiff lost his ownership, but the government's purchase of farmland is intended to distribute it to distributors, and thus the plaintiff who acquired his ownership and the plaintiff who was the prop lost his ownership. As seen above, this case's land is designated as a residential area and a completion business district as a public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of August 14, 1964, and this case's land is excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act, and its ownership shall be reverted to the plaintiff from this case's land (the remaining plaintiff's assertion is no longer necessary).

Thus, Defendant 2, the owner of the land of this case, cancelled the registration of creation of collateral mortgage, and Defendant 1, the owner of this case, removed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, removed the building in this case and delivered the land of this case from August 14, 1964 to the completion date of the delivery of this case. According to the appraisal by Nonparty 11 at the court below as to the rent of this case, according to the results of the appraisal by Nonparty 11 at the court below as to the rent of this case, the annual average rent of this case for the year 1964 shall be 198,975 won, 1965 won, 227,400 won, 1966 won, 312,675 won, and 1966 won, and the appraisal by Nonparty 12 at the court below for the year 1967 and 1968 shall not be trusted.

If so, the annual annual rent after 1967 is presumed to be equivalent to 312,675 won of the above recognition.

The rent for the land in this case shall be KRW 75,770 from August 14, 1964 to the end of the corresponding year, and KRW 1,165,425 from the year 1965 to the year 1968, while the rent for the land in this case shall be KRW 1,241,195.

If the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is well-grounded, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 against the defendant 1 is reasonable only for the portion of claim for damages equivalent to the amount of 312,675 won per year from January 1, 1969 to the completion date of the delivery of this case, and the remainder is groundless.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s appeal is without merit, and Defendant 1’s appeal is not in conformity with the original judgment as to the removal part of the building and the claim part of the damages, and thus, the original judgment with respect to Defendant 1 is to be modified. It is reasonable that the provisional execution judgment is not in accordance with the overall provisions of this case.

Therefore, the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the intervenor, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the defendant, the losing party, and the total costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the defendant, five equal parts, and four equal parts shall be borne by the defendant, and the remaining part shall be borne by the plaintiff

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Sick-man (Presiding Judge)