1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that requested the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer;

The defendant is attached to the plaintiff.

1. The Intervenor’s status and the scope of trial at this court (1) The Intervenor’s status and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the claim against the Defendant for cancellation of ownership transfer registration regarding the instant shares, and ② the claim for delivery of the instant land and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent

(A) On February 19, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for intervention on February 19, 2016, asserting that he/she acquired from the Plaintiff the right to claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and the right to claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent with respect to the instant shares. On February 19, 2016, the Intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant shares, ② a claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant shares

(2016dada7808). Bail, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2's claim is based on a real right claim based on ownership and can not be transferred separately from the ownership. Thus, even according to the intervenor's assertion itself, the above claim part is not subject to participation in succession.

Nevertheless, the intervenor continued to have the right to request cancellation of ownership transfer registration and the right to request extradition of the land of this case against the defendant. In conclusion, it is reasonable to view that the intervenor participated as an independent party pursuant to Article 79 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the intervenor has ①, ② the status as an independent party intervenor with respect to the claim, ③ the status as an intervenor succeeding the plaintiff with respect to the claim.

The court of first instance stated the status of the intervenor in the written judgment only as “the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff,” but the court granted independent case number of the intervenor’s application for intervention by this Court No. 2016da7808, and received stamp payment from the intervenor.

(2) The scope of this court’s adjudication is in accordance with Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.