[1] Whether it is permissible to render a judgment only on a part of the parties when rendering a judgment on the merits in a lawsuit participating by an independent party (negative), and in this case, where only the intervenor appealeds the judgment on the plaintiff's winning party, the confirmation of the judgment is interrupted, and the scope of the case in question

[2] The case where the part for claimant against the defendant can be modified disadvantageous to the plaintiff although only the intervenor appealeded against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an independent party suit

[3] The case holding that the part of the first instance judgment, which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in an independent party intervention lawsuit, and rejected the plaintiff's application for intervention, shall be revoked and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and it is unlawful to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the first instance judgment as the intervenor dismissed the intervenor's appeal

[1] When rendering a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant and the independent party intervenor pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is not allowed to render a judgment only on part of the above parties, since only one final judgment with the title holder of the judgment, is to be made. As a result of the application mutatis mutandis under Article 67(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to Article 67, where only the intervenor who won the plaintiff in the lawsuit involving the intervention of the independent party appeals, the final judgment of the judgment is interrupted, and the whole case becomes effective.

[2] Even though only the intervenor appealed an appeal against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an independent party lawsuit, the part against the plaintiff's defendant against the plaintiff in the appellate court can be changed disadvantageous to the plaintiff in the appellate court is legitimate, and it is necessary for the plaintiff's application for intervention to the extent that the plaintiff's application for intervention

[3] The case holding that the part of the judgment of the first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in an independent party intervention lawsuit, and rejected the plaintiff's application for intervention, shall be revoked and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, while dismissing the intervenor's appeal, is unlawful.

[1] Articles 67 and 79 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 67 and 79 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 67 and 79 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da577 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 131) Supreme Court Decision 90Da19329, 19336 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1247)

Plaintiff

Distribution-dong Saemaul Bank of Korea

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na100914, 100921 decided May 15, 2007 (Intervention)

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim on the principal lawsuit is reversed. The lawsuit on the above part was terminated on June 8, 2007 by the intervenor without filing an appeal and the period of appeal was imposed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a judgment on the merits is rendered on a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant and the independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating"), it is not allowed to render a judgment only on the part of the above party (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da19329, 19336, Mar. 22, 1991). The application of Article 67(2) applies mutatis mutandis to cases where only the intervenor filed an appeal against the plaintiff in a lawsuit involving the intervention of the independent party, the whole final judgment is interrupted and the whole case takes effect (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da577, Dec. 8, 1981). However, even if only the intervenor filed an appeal against the plaintiff's winning judgment, it is limited to the case where the plaintiff's objection against the defendant can be changed to the plaintiff's unfavorable judgment against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's request for the intervention can be made only on the legitimate date.

In light of the above legal principles, in this case where only the intervenor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's request for intervention, the court below dismissed the intervenor's appeal on the ground that the request for intervention is unlawful, but revoked the part of the principal lawsuit not appealed by the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject of adjudication of the appellate court where only a part

In addition, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which cited the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's principal lawsuit was finalized as it is when the intervenor did not file an appeal against the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that the plaintiff's request for intervention is unlawful (the record reveals that June 8, 20

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim of the principal lawsuit is reversed, and this part is sufficient for this court to directly judge. The lawsuit concerning this part is declared as terminated on June 8, 2007 by the intervenor without filing an appeal and with the lapse of the period of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)