1. The action by the independent party intervenor added by this court against the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant C-.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is recognized to be lawful in a lawsuit involving intervention by an independent party pursuant to Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when rendering a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the independent party intervenor, a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties, and a final judgment shall be rendered in the name of the said three parties. In the event one party appeals against the judgment on the merits, the final judgment of the first instance court 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, 71343, Nov. 13, 2014). The Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership against Defendant C, D, E, and F on the ground of termination of title trust, and the Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership against Defendant D, E, and independent party intervenor (hereinafter “participating”). The Intervenor sought confirmation of title truster’s rights against Defendant D, E, and F on the part of the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit. The first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, E, and F, and dismissed the Intervenor’s lawsuit.

As to the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff, Defendant D, E, and F did not appeal and only Defendant C and the Intervenor appealed, the part which the first instance court rejected the lawsuit of confirmation against the Intervenor in the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the part which accepted the claim against Defendant D, E, and F is excluded from the subject of the judgment of the first instance court. However, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D, E, and F is incompatible in light of the part of the Intervenor’s claim against the said Defendants.