(a) Requirements for participation by an independent party;

B. Whether a clan acquires ownership solely on the termination of a title trust agreement in case where the clan has entrusted the real estate to a clan member under its name

(c) The case holding that a claim against a party to an independent party intervenor is unlawful as it cannot be established by the assertion itself;

A. An independent party participating in a lawsuit is a party who asserts that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or a third party who asserts that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit is a party and participates in the lawsuit and resolve the conflicting rights or legal relations between the three parties in a lump sum without contradiction between each other by a single judgment. Therefore, the intervenor must make a separate claim incompatible with the claim against the original subject matter of the lawsuit to be participated first and the defendant, and the claim may be established by the claim itself, in addition to

B. A person who was under the circumstances pursuant to the Forest Survey Order or the Land Survey Order for the Japanese colonial City shall acquire ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan was under the circumstances that it was entrusted to the clan members, the title holder shall acquire ownership, the title truster shall cancel the title trust and claim the registration of ownership transfer in the position of the truster pursuant to the title trust contract. Even if the clan terminated the title trust contract, the title truster shall not acquire ownership unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the truster.

C. The case holding that, in light of the legal principle of "B concerning title trust", the intervenor's claim for ownership confirmation against the heir and state of the title trustee on the ground that the ownership of real estate solely by the termination of title trust belongs to an independent party intervenor inside and outside the country, and at least in relation to the state, its assertion itself cannot be established, and that the independent party's intervention is unlawful.

(a)Article 72(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 31 and 103 of the Civil Act;

A.B. (C) Supreme Court Decision 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 650) (Gong1995Sang, 650). Supreme Court Decision 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1569). Supreme Court Decision 90Da10858 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong191, 847)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Korea

Papprophal sulphoids

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na20305, 33820 decided Feb. 24, 1994 (Intervention)

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.

According to the records, the designated parties including the plaintiff (the next to the plaintiff et al.) sought confirmation of the ownership of the defendant on the ground that they are the deceased non-party 1's heir, who was in charge of the situation of the forest of this case. The intervenor sought confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case against the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the intervenor, who was the actual owner of the forest of this case, was under title trust under the name of the above non-party 1's clan, but terminated the title trust after being under the title trust. The court below rejected the plaintiff's principal safety defense as stated in its reasoning. The plaintiff's land of this case was owned by the intervenor, which was originally used by the plaintiff's funeral. On May 27, 1920, when the land investigation was conducted under the title of the plaintiff, the intervenor was under title trust under the name of the above non-party 1's heir, and only the above non-party 1's name on the title trust column of the forestry of this case, and the above non-party 1's title trust was terminated.

However, an independent party intervention intends to claim that all or part of the purpose of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or to settle the conflicting rights or legal relations between three parties in a lawsuit as a party and in a lump sum without contradiction between judgment. Thus, the intervenor must make separate claims that are incompatible with the claim of the principal lawsuit against the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit he/she intends to first participate, and the claim can be established by his/her own assertion in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit. A person under the Ordinance on the Investigation of Forest and Land Survey in Japan or the Ordinance on the Investigation into Land Survey shall acquire the ownership of the real estate owned by the clan, and even if the clan was entrusted with the title of the clan, the title holder shall acquire the ownership of the real estate, and the title truster may cancel the title trust and claim the registration of ownership transfer as a truster under the title trust agreement, and even if the title trust contract has been terminated, the title trust cannot be acquired unless the title trust is completed under his/her name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da397479, Apr. 197, 29797, 197).

In this case, as recognized by the court below, since the intervenor was investigated under the name of the above non-party 1 as to the forest of this case, it is clear that the non-party 1, the title trustee, acquired the ownership of the forest of this case in original, creative, and thereafter, even if the intervenor terminated the above title trust contract, the intervenor cannot be deemed to have yet acquired the ownership of the forest of this case in relation to the defendant unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed in its name. Thus, the intervenor's claim for confirmation of ownership of the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the ownership of the forest of this case was reverted to the plaintiff domestically and externally cannot be established by the argument itself in relation to the defendant at least, since the participation of the party of this case should be dismissed as an illegal act which does not meet the requirements for participation. However, the plaintiff's claim was rejected on the ground that the termination of the above title trust belongs to the intervenor, and the court below, which received the intervenor's claim, which did not affect the legal principles as to the cancellation of the title trust or the remaining legal principles as to the parties' participation.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)