The requirements of the independent party intervention lawsuit

The requirements for an independent party participation suit.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Attorney Seo-dong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 68Na866, 867 delivered on March 7, 1969

Each appeal by the plaintiff, the defendant 2, and the parties' intervenors is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party concerned.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion, i.e., that the plaintiff purchased the building of this case from the non-party 1 on January 15, 1968 and agreed to recognize the sale and purchase of this building and to direct direct order the plaintiff to refuse to occupy the building at the time of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant 1, who is residing in part of the building of this case, recognized the sale and purchase of this building and agreed to direct order the plaintiff to refuse to occupy the building. The witness's testimony at the original city, which seems to be consistent with the plaintiff's argument, cannot be trusted and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion as above, and there is no error of law by examining the record of the above determination of evidence, and as to the evidence No. 3 of the theory, it is obvious that the defendant 1 was the site for its establishment, and therefore,

(2) We examine Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

Defendant 2 recognized that he agreed with the Plaintiff to directly order the Plaintiff until April 2, 1968 on the part of the building, which he occupied on March 24, 1968, and the record also examined that there is no error in the fact-finding by the court below, and there is no reason to argue that there is no error in the above fact-finding by the court below, and other arguments are invoked the contents of the statement in the appellate brief submitted by the intervenor. The grounds of appeal are that the statement in the appellate brief or the statement in the appellate brief or the statement in the appellate brief may not be invoked as to the contents of other written statements. Thus, it is not reasonable to discuss this point.

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Intervenor of the parties to the case;

An independent party's lawsuit seeking ownership confirmation against the plaintiff and the defendant or allowing a third party who asserts that all or part of the subject matter of lawsuit is his own right or is subject to infringement by the result of the lawsuit to participate in a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant as a party to the lawsuit. Thus, the intervenor must make his own claim against the plaintiff and the defendant that cannot be compatible with the claim of the principal lawsuit without contradiction. In this case, according to the intervenor's argument itself, the intervenor purchased the building on December 15, 1967 from the defendant 1, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, the court below did not have any error in the misapprehension of law by deciding that the intervenor's claim for ownership confirmation against the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendants and that the defendants' claim for ownership disclosure based on the ownership order against the defendants did not meet the requirements of the party's intervention. Thus, the court below's decision on the premise that there is no ground for attacking the opposing opinion in the judgment above cannot be justified as to whether it is a party's argument other than the above.

Therefore, each ground of appeal by the plaintiff, the defendant 2, and the parties' intervenors is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)