[1] The requirements for intervention by an independent party

[2] Where a claim for confirmation of a legal relationship between one of the parties to the lawsuit and a third party or a third party has a benefit in confirmation

[3] In a case where the clan A claims the ownership verification of the land for which the clan claimed the title trust and claimed the confirmation of ownership against the State, Eul claims his own title trust, and on behalf of the title trustee, Eul seeks the confirmation of ownership by an independent party participation (affirmative)

[4] The indication of the order in the case of additional or interchangeal changes in the appeal

[1] In order for an independent party participant who asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right, the independent party intervenor shall make a separate claim against the original party and the defendant who is the previous party, respectively. A separate claim against the original party and the defendant shall not be compatible with the plaintiff's claim, and in addition, the independent party intervenor's claim shall be justified by the plaintiff's claim itself.

[2] In a lawsuit for confirmation, the only legal relationship between the parties is not the subject of confirmation, but the legal relationship between one party and a third party is not the subject of confirmation. If there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship between one party and a third party, causing unstable or risk in the legal relationship between the parties, and it becomes an appropriate means to eliminate anxiety or risk in the legal relationship between the other party, the legal relationship between the other party and a third party is also the interest in confirmation of the legal relationship between the parties or between the third party.

[3] The plaintiff's clan and the intervenor Eul who are independent parties to the plaintiff's clan dispute that each of them held a title trust with their own land, and as a result, the clan Eul's assertion is likely to cause anxiety and danger about the legal status of Eul in relation to the realization of the right to claim the transfer of ownership for the reason of termination of title trust for the land, and Eul's clan's claim against the parties to the dispute is confirmed to have ownership of the land, and it is necessary or profit to eliminate fear and danger caused by Gap's clan by clarifying the legal relationship about the land by clarifying the ownership of the land to the title trustee who asserts Eul's claim against the parties to the dispute, and in relation to the state, the heir Eul's claim against the State for the registration of ownership transfer for the preservation of ownership of the land is the co-ownership of the land. And Eul's claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the preservation of ownership for the preservation of ownership ownership for the sake of the right to claim the cancellation of title trust.

[4] In a case where a lawsuit is additionally amended and a lawsuit is changed in exchange for an additional case, the appellate court shall judge the new claim, and in the above two cases, the appellate court shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and even if the appellate court dismisses a new claim that is changed in exchange with the new claim added, it shall indicate the order that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed," and it shall not indicate the order that "the appeal is dismissed."

[1] Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [4] Articles 235, 378 and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1569), Supreme Court Decision 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 650), Supreme Court Decision 94Da9160, 9177 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2367) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2388 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3249) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da59257 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong194, 197Da39794 delivered on May 197) / [37, 1995] Supreme Court Decision 94Da1974975 delivered on May 197, 19797

In the case of a clan in the Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Sang-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

Egreical type

J. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S

Suwon District Court Decision 94Na535, 542 delivered on May 8, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below as to the plaintiff's main claim is reversed, and all of the plaintiff's main claim and ancillary claim that has been changed in addition and interchange at the court below are dismissed. The appeal as to the remaining part is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the total costs of lawsuit as to the main claim and the participation

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to whether the application for intervention by an independent party is appropriate.

A. In order for an independent party participant who claims all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit to be his/her own right, an independent party participant (hereinafter referred to as the " participant") shall make a separate claim against the original party and the defendant who is the previous party, respectively. A separate claim against the original party and the defendant is not compatible with the plaintiff's principal claim, and the intervenor's claim shall not be justified by his/her own assertion, except for the benefit of lawsuit. (See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da5727, 5734 delivered on April 27, 1993, 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on December 27, 1994, 94Da9160, 9177 delivered on June 9, 1995, etc.).

B. The record reveals the following.

(1) On March 27, 1991, the above 186 square meters and 103 square meters and more (186 square meters and more than half 1,096 square meters before the alteration of the administrative zone) were divided into three parcels, including 3,623 square meters and 186 m2,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 186 m2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 186 m2,00,000,000,000,000 and 1862,00,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

(2) In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that 186-2 land and 186-2 land were owned by the Plaintiff clan after dividing the Defendant into 186-1 land and 186-2 land after the division against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s ownership of the Intervenor’s clan, which was originally made up of the Plaintiff’s 17-year-old descendants of this clan, which was originally made up of the Plaintiff’s 17-year-old descendants, and the Intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 6, 1927 by entrusting Nonparty’s name to Nonparty 1’s Dong-dong, Ri-dong, Lee-dong, Lee-dong, Lee-dong, Lee-dong, and Lee-dong, and Lee-dong, and the Plaintiff asserted that the land was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the co-owners of this case under the premise that the title trust was terminated to the co-owners listed in the third list of co-owners of this case and the present list of co-owners of the co-ownership of this case.

On this issue, the court of first instance accepted both the plaintiff and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance. In the appellate court, the plaintiff added 186 land to the object of confirmation after the division. In addition, the plaintiff's land before the division was originally set up in the city of the deceased clan, which is the 12-year old descendants of the 12th century, and was purchased on May 6, 1927, and registered in trust with the name of the non-party in the name of the deceased Dong Dong Dong-gu, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-chul, Lee, Lee Jong-chul, Lee-chul, Lee, and Lee Jong-chul, and Lee Lee-young as the heir of the above trustee, and the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff shared the shares of co-owners in the same list of co-owners listed in the 2nd list of co-owners who succeeded to the status of the above trustee as the title trustee or the property heir.

Since then, the plaintiff and the intervenor withdraw the principal lawsuit and the lawsuit of intervention on the land of 186-2 after the division from the date of the 17th pleading of the original judgment.

The lower court determined that the Intervenor’s independent party participation was lawful, and further, the Intervenor’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendant was in interest in confirmation, and determined that the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the instant land was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s clan was not reasonable, and rendered a judgment dismissing all the appeals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. In a lawsuit for confirmation, it does not mean that only the relationship between the parties can be confirmed, but only with respect to the relationship between one party and a third party or with respect to the relationship between a third party, if there is an apprehension or risk in relation to the relationship between the parties, and the other party's relationship is an appropriate means to eliminate anxiety or risk in relation to the relationship between the parties' relationship, the legal relationship between the other party and the third party shall also be confirmed. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da23388, Nov. 8, 1994; 94Da59257, May 26, 1995; 95Da26131, Oct. 12, 1995).

According to the above, in this case, the plaintiff and the intervenor argued that each of the land of this case was registered in title by their own possession to the members of their own clan, and due to such assertion by the plaintiff, the intervenor is likely to cause anxiety and danger as to the legal status in relation to the realization of the right to claim the registration of title transfer for the cancellation of title trust for the land of this case. The intervenor is confirmed to have ownership for the land of this case against the plaintiff who is the party to the dispute, and it is necessary or has legal interest to eliminate fear and danger caused by the plaintiff by clarifying the legal relationship of rights for the land of this case by obtaining confirmation that the intervenor has ownership for the land of this case against the plaintiff

In addition, in relation to the defendant, the heir of the title trustee alleged by the intervenor has the interest to seek confirmation on his co-ownership of the land of this case against the State in order to make registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case, and the intervenor also has the interest to seek such confirmation against the State by subrogation of the title trustee in order to preserve the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of title trust. In the defendant's participation, it is clear that the intervenor has made a claim for participation by subrogation of the title trustee (see, e.g., the intervenor's claim and change of the cause of claim). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below stated in the judgment on this defense that "the intervenor has made confirmation on the defendant's claim for participation on the premise that the intervenor terminates the title trust relationship and seeks the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the participant." In conclusion, it is clear that the court below has the interest to seek confirmation of the intervenor's claim against the defendant in order to seek the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of title trust."

Meanwhile, all the cases cited in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff are the cases where the buyer or the title truster who failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer in his/her future seeks confirmation that he/she has ownership to himself/herself, and there are different cases from this case.

After all, the intervenor made separate claims against the plaintiff and the defendant who are the previous party, and each separate claim needs to be resolved without contradiction in relation to the claim of the principal lawsuit, and each claim needs to be resolved without contradiction, and there is a benefit of confirmation and can be formed by itself. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the application of the intervention is legitimate is just, and there is no reason to discuss it.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the merits.

Examining and comparing the evidence legitimately admitted by the court below with the records, the court below's decision that the 186 land before the division was originally owned by the intervenor, but the decision of the court below that the intervenor was entrusted only to the moving tool, the Lee Jong-gu, Lee Jong-gu, Lee Young-gu, Lee Young-chul as of May 6, 1927 is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as discussed above. There is no reason to discuss the facts.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

3. We examine the plaintiff's interest in confirming the plaintiff's main claim ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the title trust relationship between the plaintiff clan and the title trustee as to the land of this case and the land of this case under the premise that the status of the title trustee was terminated for the present title trustee who succeeded to the status of the title trustee by asserting that the land of this case was registered under the name of the title trustee, and that the land of this case was co-ownership according to the co-ownership share of the co-owners' assertion in the future of the plaintiff clan. However, it is obvious that the plaintiff clan and the title trustee could not be viewed that the title trust relationship exists between the plaintiff clan and the title trustee. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a third party's assertion that the title trustee has co-ownership right to the land of this case. Therefore, the court below should have dismissed the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, even though the court below rejected

In addition, the appellate court shall decide on the new claim in case where a lawsuit is additionally amended and the lawsuit is changed in exchange for the case at the time of the appellate trial. In the above two cases, the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and even if the appellate court dismisses the new claim that is changed in exchange with the new claim added, the appellate court shall indicate the order that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed," and it shall not indicate the order that "the appeal is dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da546, Jun. 27, 1972; 73Da1796, May 28, 1974). However, according to the above, the appellate court added a claim for 186 land after division at the appellate court and changed the lawsuit in exchange for the land of 186-1 land after division, so the appellate court does not need to determine the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance as to the plaintiff's claim, and it does not indicate the new claim that is changed in exchange with the added lawsuit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the plaintiff's main claim is reversed, and it is sufficient to judge the party members as to that part, and therefore, it is decided to dismiss all the main claim and the conjunctive claim that the plaintiff changed additionally and exchanged in the court below.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the principal lawsuit is reversed, and the plaintiff also dismissed the main claim and the conjunctive claim that has been changed additionally and exchanged at the court below. The appeal as to the remainder is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the principal lawsuit and the participation by the independent party are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)