1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendants by the plaintiffs and the independent parties intervenors.

1. Scope of the trial of this court according to the necessity of the partnership; and

A. An independent party intervention lawsuit pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act is a form of lawsuit in which the plaintiff, defendant, and independent party intervenor resolve the same legal relationship in a lump sum without contradiction. In a case where an independent party intervention is deemed lawful and a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and independent party intervenor is rendered on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant, and independent party intervenor, a final judgment with the title holder of the above three parties should be rendered, thereby rendering a joint and conclusive conclusion among the above three parties. In a case where one party appeals on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance shall be interrupted and the entire case shall take effect.

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of objection expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who filed the actual appeal, but the scope of the judgment should be determined by considering the necessity of the conclusion of the conclusion between the three parties

(Supreme Court Decision 209Da71312, 71329, 71336, 71343 Decided November 13, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, 86580 Decided October 26, 2007, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, 86580).

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation of ownership of the instant land and restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, and the Intervenor sought confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the co-defendants of the first instance trial. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the co-defendants of the first instance trial against the Republic of Korea, the portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the lawsuit against Defendant I, and the Intervenor’s lawsuit against the co-defendants of the first instance trial against the Republic of Korea, respectively. The Plaintiffs partly accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for confirmation of ownership against the Defendants, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the Defendant G, and H, and the claim for confirmation of ownership against the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.