The requirements for an independent party intervention suit

The independent party intervenor's claim that the defendant must confirm that the site of this case is owned by the intervenor, and that the plaintiff et al. remove the building on this case's site and deliver the site of this case to the plaintiff et al., the defendant acknowledged the intervenor's claim as to the intervenor's claim in whole and rather requested a judgment such as the reference witness's claim. In other words, the intervenor's claim against the defendant against the defendant has no interest in confirmation, and therefore, the intervenor's independent party participation cannot be dismissed as it is illegal.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Defendant

An intervenor;

Seoul Central District Court (65Ga1484, 3239) in the first instance trial

(1) The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed.

(2) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(A) The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays 49,650 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1, and 33,100 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, and 16,550 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 6, 7, and 8, respectively, and 8,275 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 9.

(B) The remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

(C) The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 paid KRW 4,800 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 3,200 for each of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 2,3,4, and 5, and KRW 6,7, and KRW 800 for each of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 1,600 for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 800 for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

(D) The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s remaining claims are dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the participation of an independent party shall be borne by the independent party intervenor, and the remainder (the part arising from the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim) shall be borne by all of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) and the remainder by the defendant (the counterclaim plaintiff).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s attorney at the lower court held that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for the repayment of KRW 4,600 and KRW 4,60 by dividing one part of the attached drawing(A) into 28 to 136 of 3-28 to 136, such as the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to 3-72 to 6-6 of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

If it is impossible to file the above transfer registration, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) will implement the procedure for the transfer registration of equity interest in repayment with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) about KRW 4,600 and KRW 20/136 of equity interest of KRW 3-28 to KRW 136.

The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant (Counterclaim), and the alteration thereof was made to the court of the first instance, and the defendant (Counterclaim defendant) paid 24,137 won to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), 144,827 won, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively, to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), 96,51 won, 6, 7, and 8 of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), 48,275 won, and 9 of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution against the above paragraph (1) is sought.

As a counter-claim, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) jointly pays to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount calculated by multiplying 1,320 won per month from August 5, 1962 to May 18, 1965 by the rate of 1,320 won per month from May 19, 1965 to the time the delivery of the above site is completed. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) pays to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of money calculated by multiplying 1,320 won per month by the 1,320 won of the building for the assessment of mentmen’s coar set up on the ground of 3-72 of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the declaration of provisional execution against the above paragraph (1) are sought.

An independent party intervenor's attorney confirms that the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is the intervenor's ownership of 3-2 to 76-2 of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) removed 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, and 6,00 square meters of the above site, set up on the above site, and delivered 6,00 square meters.

The judgment that the expenses for participation should be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) and the judgment of provisional execution against the above paragraph (2) are sought.

The attorney of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) sought a judgment identical to that entered in the original judgment and the purport of the claim in the original judgment, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) revoked the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the original judgment.

In addition to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, the judgment and provisional execution, such as the claim of the counterclaim at the court below, are sought.

(A) First, we examine ex officio whether the intervention of an independent party intervenor is legitimate.

An independent party intervention intends to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or to resolve the conflicting rights or legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor (the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor) as a party to the lawsuit and at the same time without contradiction. Thus, the intervenor's separate claims should be made against the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if there is a separate claim in form, if there is no benefit of the lawsuit, the independent party intervention cannot be deemed to be illegal if there is no benefit of the lawsuit. On the other hand, in this case, the independent party intervenor's claim against the defendant (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff) is about 32 to 62 of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and about 32 to 72 to 62 to 10,000,000 as to the defendant (the plaintiff, the counter-party defendant, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's counterclaim's claim against the defendant's participation, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(B) Next, we examine the plaintiffs' claims for principal lawsuit.

Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the 1st 28th 161 square meters of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu 1 had originally reverted to the 15th 1st 28th 1st 5th 20, the plaintiffs obtained the ownership of 33,00 won from the above 161 p.m. which is the plaintiffs' prior property belonging to 162 p.m. and paid the 142 p.m. on June 7, 1959. Accordingly, the non-party 1 agreed that the above non-party 1 shall make the registration of ownership transfer of the whole 20 p.m. to the defendant before the above 30th 1st 5th 5th 5th 7th 20, which is the non-party 1's previous 142 p.m. 20th 3th 5th 5th 5th 5th 20, which is presumed to be non-party 1's new 3th 20th 20th 3th 3th 3th 2.

(1) On May 24, 1956, the deceased non-party 1 leased and used the above 28 to 3-28 to 161 to 3-2 of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, which is the property devolving upon his survival. On May 24, 1956, the part corresponding to the north side of the above site (after the same 1 to 3-72 and 3-73 of the previous 1 to 140 to 50 to 140 to the defendant, except this part, the non-party 1, who is under lease from the government authorities, agreed to transfer the remaining 140 to 30 to 140 to 10 to 30 to 10 to 30 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 150 to 140 to 10 to 140 to 10 to 150 to 140 to 20 to 140 to 140 to 1 to 1.

(2) On June 14 of the same year, the non-party 1 and the defendant paid 7,000 won to the non-party 1 for all expenses incurred under the above site, and the non-party 1 agreed to bear the part exceeding 200 won per the non-party 1's balance of the non-party 1, and the defendant delivered 7,000 won to the non-party 1

(3) As to the above site 30th of the same month, Nonparty 1 entered into a sales contract with the administrative authority, the sales contract was 33,000 won as to the above site 142 square meters for the reason that approximately 19 square meters of the 161st of the above site was designated as road site, and the part on the north of the above wall which was held by Nonparty 1 not to sell to the defendant according to the part which was occupied by Nonparty 1 was included within the above 142 square meters, and the defendant paid the above payment in installments in the name of Nonparty 1 in accordance with the above agreement.

(4) On July 28, 1962, the non-party 1 and the defendant decided to change the name of the purchaser of the above site to the name of the defendant. After the non-party 1 paid the price in full and acquired the ownership of the above site, the part north of the above wall possessed by the non-party 1 is transferred in installments. The non-party 1's portion of the non-party 1's possession shall be settled after the substitute payment by the defendant, and the defendant concluded a contract for the renewal of property devolving upon the government authorities on August 4, 1962 and concluded a contract for the renewal of property devolving upon the above 142's portion of the above site by July 3, 1963.

(5) On December 14, 1963, which was enforced from December 17, 1963, the office of administration of the above site, it was required to take charge of local tax-free office in accordance with the amended Act of December 14, 1963 (Act No. 1515 of December 14, 1963, which was enforced as of December 15, 1963), to correct 142 as of May 146 of the sale site for the reason that the level of 19 square meters was reduced to 15 square meters as of May 22, 1964. On the other hand, the defendant notified the defendant to pay 14,00 won with an additional charge for increased 4 square meters, and the defendant paid 14,00 won as of May 23, 1964 and paid 57,000 won to 146,000 won as of that of Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

(6) On May 18, 1965, the defendant divided the above large 146 square meters into 3-78 large 136 square meters, 3-72 large 6 square meters at the same place, 3-73 large 74 square meters at the same place. The part possessed by the non-party 1, which corresponds to the part on the north side of the wall at which the defendant is required to make the registration of transfer to the non-party 1, and which corresponds to the total of 10 square meters at 72 large 6 and 3-3 large 73 square meters at the above 3-2 large 76 square meters at the same place.

(7) On November 6, 1965, the defendant sold the above 3-3 large 73 large 74 square meters to an intervenor who is a party participant and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by the 16th day of the same month.

(8) The non-party 1 died on June 21, 1966 when the principal lawsuit is pending in the court of first instance, and the plaintiffs jointly inherited the property.

(9) On October 14, 1966, the Plaintiffs each acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was the designated recipient and deposited 4,600 won in return for the payment on the above site by designating the Defendant as the multi-level recipient.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the above 3-2 to 6-3 to 10 square meters on the north side of the wall held by the non-party 1. Since the defendant already sold the above part to the non-party and completed the registration of transfer to the non-party, in relation to the plaintiffs, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for damages according to the price at the time of impossibility of performance.

However, as above, the defendant completely paid the price for the above site 146 square meters and received all documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership from Yongsan Tax Office, and urged the non-party 1 to perform the registration of the transfer of ownership in accordance with the boundaries established in accordance with the agreement between the non-party and the defendant, and to deliver all documents required for the registration of the transfer of ownership to the non-party, but the non-party did not comply with such request. Therefore, the defendant notified the above non-party of the cancellation of the above contract without permission. Therefore, as the above contract was cancelled, the defendant did not have any obligation to perform the above registration procedure. Thus, as acknowledged above, the non-party 1 purchased some rights of the land owned by the non-party 1 as the defendant's assertion and received all the above land including the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's purchase of the above trust agreement or non-party's non-party's non-party's ownership.

Therefore, as seen above, since the defendant disposed of the above 3-3 large 73 large 4 square meters, the time when it was impossible to perform the above 3-3 large 73 large 4 square meters, the time when it was discharged shall be November 16, 1965. Since the above 3-72 large 6 square meters was disposed of, the time when it was impossible to perform the above 3-72 large 72 square meters, the time when it was discharged shall be the 1967 April 17, 1967. According to the appraisal result of the appraiser non-party 8, the above 3-4 large 73 large 4 square meters as of November 16, 1965, the above 3-15,00 won per 72 large 72 large 6 square meters as of April 17, 1967 x 100 won per 600 large 70 square meters per 70 days per annum, respectively, the defendant may be liable for damages from the above 300-day per 70 days per annum.

(C) Next, we examine the defendant's counterclaim claim. First, under the premise that the defendant has ownership of the above 3-2 large 72 large 72 large 6th unit, the defendant sought to remove 1 unit of the above 4th unit building and transfer the above 6th unit of the above site under the premise that the defendant had ownership of the above 3-72 large 6th unit, and the defendant sought to transfer the above 6th unit of the building. On the other hand, the defendant's claim to transfer the above site to the plaintiff's heir as the amount of damages equivalent to the above site's rent from August 5, 1962 to May 18, 1965, and the amount of 1,320 won per month from May 19, 1965 until the above site is delivered. As seen above, since the above ownership of the above site was transferred to the non-party 1, the plaintiff's heir, the above owner of the above site, and the defendant's claim to transfer the above ownership to the plaintiff's heir.

Next, the defendant agreed to pay the above non-party 27,80 won (calculated standard: 57,00 won - 200 won x 146) corresponding to the above contract amount among the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's purchase price of this site. Thus, the defendant asserted that the above non-party's co-inheritors are entitled to pay the above contract amount of 27,800 won (calculated standard: 57,00 won) x 146's purchase price. As seen in (2) in the judgment on the above principal lawsuit, the defendant and the non-party 1's decedent 1's co-inheritors were agreed as alleged in the defendant, and the total amount of 146's non-party 1's 70,000 won was 50 won and 80,000 won were 60 won for each of the above plaintiff 2's non-party 1's compensation amount.

(D) Conclusion

Accordingly, the intervenor's application for intervention as an independent party shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the defendant has an obligation to pay the plaintiffs the amount stated in (A) of each Disposition (2) to the defendant, and since the plaintiffs and the defendant's main lawsuit and counterclaim claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, they shall be dismissed as they are justified and the remainder is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is partially unfair, and the plaintiffs and the defendant's appeal are partly reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is modified in accordance with Article 385 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is recognized that provisional execution is unnecessary to declare a provisional execution, each application for a provisional execution by the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be dismissed, and each application for a declaration of provisional execution shall be made in accordance with Articles 96, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)