In case where only some of the plaintiff who has lost in the lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party and the defendants have appealed, the effect of the appeal against the defendant who has not appealed shall be valid.

In a case where only the plaintiff who has lost in the lawsuit for intervention by an independent party and only some defendants have appealed, unless there is a necessary co-litigation relationship between the defendants, only three of the appeal proceedings shall continue in the appellate court, and three of the appeal proceedings in the relationship against the defendant who has not appealed shall be terminated as the period of appeal (determined).

Articles 72, 63, and 377 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and six others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 71Na820, 821 decided January 25, 1973

The part concerning Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the remaining part of the original judgment shall be dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the party-party intervenor.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor;

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the deceased non-party 1's property heir in the former part of the judgment on the claim of the independent party intervenor is non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, non-party 6, and non-party 7, and the independent party intervenor who is a higher-ranking property heir cannot become his heir of the property. In the latter part, the independent party intervenor's objection to this case has seven seedlings, which are the body of the independent party intervenor within the forest, and therefore, it is hard to find that the independent party's assertion that there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below as to the above non-party's assertion that there is no evidence as to the existence of the above non-party's farmland within 1 information belonging to the grave and the farmland within 600 square meters, since it is limited to the same-party's lineal descendant or sibling, and it is not allowed to inherit it to the other party's heir of the above non-party 9.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

However, it is clear that Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 did not appeal from the beginning of the judgment of the first instance. However, this case is a three-area litigation relationship between the plaintiff, the defendant, the intervenor and the plaintiff, and the intervenor and the defendant, and it is logically necessary to resolve three of the three-party claims as one of the above-mentioned three-party decisions, which does not conflict with each other. Although Defendant 3 and the defendant 4 did not appeal, if the remaining defendant et al., except the above two defendant et al., filed a legitimate appeal, the effect of appeal on the plaintiff et al. against the defendant et al. and the defendant 3 and the defendant 4 shall be deemed to equally affect the plaintiff et al. who lost in the first instance court and the defendant 4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant et al. and the intervenor's claim against the defendant 3, defendant 4 and the plaintiff shall also be prevented from the confirmation and all of them are continued at the appellate court.

However, in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party, other than a dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the intervenor of the independent party, and the defendant against the plaintiff and the defendant shall settle the dispute without contradictions between the three parties. If one of the three parties won the dispute, the other party shall not lose all of them, and only the other party shall be similar to the co-litigation as stipulated in Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Da578, 579, Nov. 23, 1961), and if the plaintiff and the defendant have joined only some of the plaintiff and the defendant as the original party, the remaining plaintiff and the defendant are not designated as the original party or the defendant are merely the reason that they are in the status of the plaintiff or the defendant (the third party of the lawsuit) and some of the losing parties are not legally related to the plaintiff and the defendant as the independent party to the lawsuit, and if the plaintiff and the defendant were not related to the defendant as the independent party to the lawsuit, the part of the appeal against the plaintiff and the defendant as the defendant as the defendant-appellant are not related to the defendant.

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

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)