Cases where an application for intervention by an independent party is unlawful;

With respect to the instant real estate owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim is filed for the cancellation of the registration of invalidation of the cause, while the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the defendant without any cause for registration, and the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the defendant without any cause for registration as to the instant real estate from the plaintiff, who is the original owner of the instant real estate. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant was made for the cancellation of the registration of invalidation of the cause, and the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on donation against the plaintiff. It cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff and three claims against the defendant against the plaintiff should be resolved at once without inconsistency with each other as a single judgment. Thus, the application

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da987 delivered on June 9, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 69Da1440 delivered on December 9, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 69Da1440 delivered on December 9, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 97Da147 delivered on June 9, 196, Supreme Court Decision 72(42)81 delivered on December 9, 1969)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap855) in the first instance trial

(1) The application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed.

(2) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

As to the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was passed through the sale on June 4, 1958, in accordance with Article 5275, which was received on June 4, 1958.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit incurred by the intervention of an independent party shall be borne by the intervenor of the independent party, and the costs of lawsuit incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second

The plaintiff's attorney filed a judgment with the purport of appeal to the same purport as the main text of Paragraph (2) and the latter part of Paragraph (3) of this Article, and the independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the intervenor thereafter)'s attorney shall execute the procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in the attached Form No. 5275, Jun. 4, 1958, which was received on the part of the intervenor by the Ansan District Court of Seoul, the registration office of Jun. 4, 1958, and the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate transferred from March 6, 1957.

The judgment that the cost of lawsuit incurred by the intervention of the independent party shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant.

(1) First, it is to judge whether the Intervenor’s application for intervention by the independent party to the instant case is legitimate.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as the cause of the instant lawsuit is that the real estate in this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and without any cause for registration, is transferred to the Defendant under the name of the Defendant with respect to the said real estate without registration, and thus, the Defendant claims for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that is null and void. The gist of the Intervenor’s assertion as the ground for the application for intervention of the case is that the said real estate was originally owned by the Plaintiff and was donated to the Plaintiff on March 6, 1957 by the Intervenor without any cause for registration as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the Plaintiff claims for the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the said real estate without any cause for registration as to the said real estate. In addition, the Plaintiff

However, the original independent party participation is seeking to resolve in a lump sum without inconsistency between the plaintiff's right and the third party who asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right, or that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party, and participates in the lawsuit and resolve the conflicting rights or legal relations between the third party. In this case, not only can the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration against the defendant and the intervenor's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration against the defendant, but also can be compatible with the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration against the defendant and the plaintiff's claim for the above ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, the intervenor's claim against the defendant and three claims against the plaintiff such as the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a case where the plaintiff must be resolved in a lump sum without inconsistency with each other by one judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da987, Jun. 9, 1964; 1969Da14).

(2) Next, the following Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is to be determined.

In light of the facts that the plaintiff originally owned the real estate in this case, around March 195, the plaintiff donated the above real estate to the Foundation, the ownership transfer registration was passed through the defendant's name as to the above real estate, as stated in Section 2 (2) in the plaintiff's name, and the defendant's wife is not in dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 3, the court below and non-party 2's testimony, Gap evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2, the above witness and non-party 3's testimony, the defendant's representative's testimony and non-party 3's testimony, the record tape, the result of verification, and the purport of the oral argument, etc., the above foundation is established for the purpose of operating the above real estate to assist children or the senior executives in need of relief, and the court below's decision that the plaintiff's above real estate was not made for the purpose of operating the above 7th of the Foundation's 197 members of the above Foundation to the above 197 members of the Foundation.

If so, the transfer registration of ownership on the above real estate under the name of the defendant cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances.

However, the issue was discussed that the above foundation corporation received the gift from the plaintiff, but the above real estate was disposed of because it did not make profits separately, and the board of directors of April 22, 1957 passed a resolution to delegate the operation committee to determine whether it would dispose of the above real estate or not. Accordingly, on May 13, 1957, the senior management committee members discussed the issue in the presence of the non-party 6, who was the chief director of the above foundation corporation, and the defendant purchased the above real estate from the plaintiff's name and directly passed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant since the defendant purchased it from the plaintiff's name, and passed the registration of transfer of ownership under the above defendant's name.

However, in addition to the evidence rejected as above, there is no other evidence to prove that the representative of the above foundation or the board of directors granted the right to dispose of the above real estate to the original senior executive members. Thus, even if the defendant purchased the above real estate from them according to the resolution of the original senior executive members, the above incorporated foundation may not have any effect on the above incorporated foundation unless it was purchased from the representative of the above incorporated foundation. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is clear that there is no reason to judge any other point.

(3) Therefore, the intervenor's application for intervention by the independent party is unlawful and thus dismissed. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the above real estate in the name of the defendant whose cause is invalid is reasonable, and it is accepted. Since the original judgment is improper in conclusion, the original judgment is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 94 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)