The requirements of the independent party intervention lawsuit

According to the plaintiff's claim, "the defendant paid gold 】 Won to the plaintiff, and according to the plaintiff's claim, "the plaintiff confirms that the Y acquisition facility is owned by the intervenor" is obvious that "the defendant makes a claim for gold 】 Won to the intervenor," so the plaintiff's claim cannot be deemed as incompatible with the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff made a certain claim against both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

62Da93 delivered on July 19, 1962

Camp farm No. 1

The Land Improvement Cooperatives in the case of tugboated Land;

Intervenor of a Party

Red support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na649, 68Na650 delivered on March 28, 1969

Of the original judgment and the first instance judgment, the part concerning the intervenor by parties shall be reversed, and the application for intervention by parties shall be dismissed.

All litigation costs incurred by the intervention of the parties shall be borne by the intervenor of the parties.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the following facts based on the timely evidence. In other words, the non-party 1 (which was created with Y1) was the non-party 2 who purchased the above farmland from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 who purchased the above 8-party 8-party 3-party 3-party 3-party 4-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 3-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 3-party 9-party 9-party 3-party 9-party 9-party 2.

(2) First of all, as to the grounds of appeal by the party intervenor, the case is examined ex officio;

The independent party's lawsuit is for the purpose of determining which part of the right which is the subject of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the intervenor. Thus, it shall be interpreted that the plaintiff's claim and the intervenor's claim should be in a non-conformity relationship between the plaintiff and the intervenor's claim should be interpreted. The intervenor must make a certain claim against the defendant and make a certain claim against the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da93 delivered on July 19, 1962). In this case, upon the plaintiff's request, "the defendant shall pay 479,650 won to the plaintiff." According to the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff, "the defendant shall pay 479,650 won to the plaintiff", the transferee's claim is confirmed to be owned by the intervenor. Since it is obvious that the defendant's claim as above is not compatible with the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff cannot be justified by the court of first instance and the court of first instance.

Therefore, the application for intervention by the parties is unlawful, and the part concerning the intervenors among the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed and the application for intervention is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Young-op (Presiding Justice)