Where participation by an independent party is illegal, the validity of withdrawal of a lawsuit due to such independent party's participation;

If an independent party intervenor withdraws from the lawsuit by participating in the lawsuit, and the previous plaintiff and the defendant withdraw from the lawsuit, the party's participation is premised on the legitimacy of the party's participation. Therefore, the plaintiff's withdrawal from the lawsuit or the intervention in the lawsuit is illegal, the plaintiff'

Articles 72 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

An intervenor;

Seoul Central District Court (63Ga35481) in the first instance trial (63Do354)

Supreme Court Decision 65Da2195 Decided January 31, 1966

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Any request for intervention by a party intervenor shall be dismissed.

The part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The part of the total litigation costs incurred between the parties and the defendant shall be borne by the intervenor.

(1) The plaintiff's agent shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration for the reason of the sale on December 1, 1958 with the Government Support of Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu District Court No. 384, Dec. 9, 1958, which was received on December 9, 1958.

A judgment was rendered that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and

(2) The intervenor's representative sought a judgment that the defendant's (1) and the contents are identical to the cancellation registration procedure and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A party intervenor has cancelled the original judgment and sought a judgment identical with the purport of the claim.

On the other hand, if it is clear that the intervenor does not make any claim against the defendant, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the third party of the intervenor, the right which is the object of the lawsuit is his own right or is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit to intervene in the independent party under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the decision of the court below is unlawful as the above intervention (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1691, 1692 delivered on March 16, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 64Da1691, 1692 delivered on March 16, 196). According to the above request for intervention, the independent party intervenor is entitled to request cancellation of the registration against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has ownership of the real estate stated in the claim for cancellation registration procedure against the defendant, and it is clear that there is no claim against the plaintiff, so the intervenor's claim for cancellation of the registration has no effect on the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's request for intervention is unlawful as it is based on the premise that the plaintiff's independent party's application for intervention should be dismissed.

If so, the court below should judge the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, but there is no trial on it, and thus, it shall be remanded to the court below for a trial by analogy in light of the purport of Article 388 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)