The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Where a third party took part in a lawsuit pursuant to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act by asserting that he/she succeeded to the whole or part of the right, which is the object of the lawsuit, while the lawsuit for ex officio judgment on the plaintiff's appeal is pending in the court, and the plaintiff does not dispute the succession of the succeeding intervenor, but if the plaintiff does not withdraw or withdraw the lawsuit without contesting the succession of the succeeding intervenor, or remains in the lawsuit due to the defendant's disapproval, Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation applies to the claims overlapped by succession between the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da46170, Oct. 23, 2019). Thus, the litigation acts conducted by the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are effective only for the benefit

According to the records, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case against the Defendant based on the ownership of the building of this case, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that he was transferred the ownership of the building of this case from the Plaintiff and filed an application for intervention in succession against the Defendant by claiming that the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the building of this case to the Plaintiff succeeding intervenor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not dispute the transfer of the ownership of the building of this case to the Plaintiff succeeding intervenor but did not withdraw from the lawsuit or withdraw the lawsuit.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s appeal is effective only for the benefit of both the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. If the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment in the lower court, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff did not have any benefit in filing an appeal against the lower judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da61378, Jun. 14, 2002). Rather, the Plaintiff’s appeal will result in the disadvantage for which the confirmation and enforcement of the lower judgment