The requirements for party participation

With respect to party participation under Article 72 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a security judgment shall be a joint and conclusive judgment between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor, to the effect that Article 63 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the party participation, and the res judicata shall not conflict with each other. On the other, even if the result of the judgment may vary, such as where the defendant cannot win the defendant, even if he/she can not win the case, he/she shall not meet the requirements for participation as a party participation.

Articles 72, 63, and 66 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor of a Party

Busan District Court (Law No. 66Ga2487, 3028)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The request for intervention by the parties shall be dismissed.

The total costs of litigation due to participation shall be borne by the intervenor.

The plaintiff performed the procedure for cancellation registration of provisional registration due to the provisional registration decision of the court on April 9, 196, as the plaintiff received on April 14, 1966 from Busan District Court Busan District Court, Busan District Court No. 6866, Apr. 14, 1966.

The court costs shall be assessed against the defendant. The plaintiff shall be assessed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall be assessed against the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's half of the above site, and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the trade on November 11, 1962, which was accepted by the above registry office No. 13446, Nov. 14, 1963, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the above provisional registration as to the plaintiff's half as to

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of the above provisional registration against the plaintiff.

The intervenor's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the above intervenors.

In light of the purport that Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the participation of the above party to the contract under Article 72 (2) of the same Act, the judgment shall be finalized on a joint basis among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenors. Accordingly, res judicata shall not conflict with each other. Thus, even if the result of the judgment can not change as to the defendant's assertion, such as the plaintiff's failure to win the contract, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's participation does not meet the requirements for participation as a party's intervention. In this case, this real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff on February 15, 1962, and was sold to the plaintiff 70,000,000 won and its remaining 20,000 won were collected from the plaintiff 1 to the defendant's provisional registration, and the plaintiff's remaining 16,000,000 won was delivered from the plaintiff 1 to the defendant on the ground of the above provisional registration, and thus, the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was not received from the plaintiff 16, respectively.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju