(a) Requirements for participation by an independent party;

B. Whether the termination of a title trust agreement can only acquire ownership in a case where the clans received an assessment by trusting the real estate under the name of the clans to the clan members

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

A. An independent party participating in a lawsuit intends to claim that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party, and then resolve in a lump sum without inconsistency between the two parties by a single judgment, so the intervenor must make a separate claim inconsistent with the claim against the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit to be first participated, and the claim may be established by the argument itself, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit.

B. A person who received a circumstance under the Forest Survey Ordinance or the Land Survey Ordinance shall acquire ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan has entrusted the real estate owned by it to the clan members, his/her title holder shall acquire ownership. A clan, a title truster, can only terminate a title trust and file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership in the position of a truster under a title trust agreement, and even if the clan terminates a title trust agreement, he/she shall not acquire ownership unless the registration of transfer of ownership is completed in its name.

C. The case holding that, even if the independent party intervenor's assertion regarding title trust is based on the legal principles of "B", since the intervenor did not acquire the ownership of real estate, the participant's claim for confirmation of ownership or for cancellation of registration based on ownership cannot be established by the allegation itself, an independent party's intervention is unlawful.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 31 and 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 650). Supreme Court Decision 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1569) B. Supreme Court Decision 71Da625 delivered on May 24, 1971 (No ②255) (Gong1991, 847)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Attorney Hwang Woo-sung, a legal representative among the class of Chang Jink Syk-Jak

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na9117, 93Na9124 decided December 16, 1993 (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 and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period are considered to supplement the grounds of appeal.

An independent party intervention intends to claim that the whole or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right, or that a third party asserting that the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right by the result of a lawsuit as a party, and then resolve in a lump sum without inconsistency each other by a judgment, the conflicting rights or legal relations between the three parties. Thus, the intervenor must first make a separate claim that is incompatible with the principal claim against the original claim against the plaintiff and the defendant of the lawsuit he/she intends to participate, and the claim may be established by his/her own claim, in addition to the benefit of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da5727, 5734, Apr. 27, 1993; 92Da49362, 49379, Dec. 27, 1994).

According to the records, the plaintiff sought confirmation of the ownership of each of the real estate of this case from the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 on the ground that he succeeded to the ownership in succession, and at the same time sought cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant as to the real estate listed in the annexed Table No. 2 among them. The intervenor's clan, as the ownership of each of the real estate of this case, was substantially owned by the intervenor of this case under the name of the above non-party 1 and non-party 2, and it is obvious that the plaintiff, the heir of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, returned to the title by cancelling the title trust, and sought confirmation of the ownership and cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation as to the real estate listed in the annexed Table No. 2. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the participation of the clan of this case was legitimate.

However, a person who was under the Presidential Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land in Japan or the Decree on the Investigation of Land Survey shall acquire ownership in a permanent and creative manner. Even if a clan has entrusted the real estate owned by it to a clan member, his/her title holder shall acquire ownership, and the title truster shall only terminate the title trust and file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership as a truster under the title trust agreement, and even if a clan terminates the title trust agreement, it shall not acquire ownership unless the registration of transfer of ownership is completed in its name (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da10858 delivered on January 25, 1991; 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on January 25, 1991; 92Da49379 delivered on January 25, 199). Upon examining the intervenor's claim against the defendant in this case, even if based on the intervenor's assertion in light of the above legal principles on the title trust, the intervenor's claim for the confirmation of ownership or the request for cancellation of ownership.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to party participation, which held that party participation in the case was legitimate, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out. This error has affected the entire judgment of the court below.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)