1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Plaintiff’s suit against Defendant B and his suit against Defendant B.

1. An independent party intervention under Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act is the form of litigation in which the dispute between the plaintiff, the defendant and the intervenor regarding the same legal relationship is resolved in a lump sum without contradiction.

When an independent party intervention is deemed lawful and rendering a judgment on the merits of a lawsuit between the plaintiff, defendant and the intervenor on the merits, a final judgment on the title holder of the judgment shall be rendered between the three parties. In a case where one party appeals against such judgment on the merits, the final judgment on the merits shall be rendered in a single final judgment on the title holder of the judgment. In a case where one party appeals against such judgment on the merits, the final judgment on

In such cases, the subject of the appellate court's judgment shall be limited to the scope of appeal expressed in the purport of appeal by the person who actually filed the appeal, but the scope of appeal should be determined by considering the need for the conclusion between the three parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da19329, 19336 Decided March 22, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71312, 71329, 71329, 71336, and 71343 Decided November 13, 201, etc.). In the instant case, the first instance judgment partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant clan”), dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, and partly accepted the Intervenor’s claim against the Defendant clan, and only the Plaintiff appealed.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim against the defendant clan of the intervenor who did not file an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance has been prevented from becoming final and conclusive, and considering the scope of appeal and the need for the conclusion conclusion between the plaintiff, the defendant clan, and the intervenors, all of the claims subject to the judgment of the court of first instance are subject to the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. AD 22 years of age G was subject to the assessment of the instant land on August 29, 1911, and the said G had H, I, and J as its child.

B. G. April 19, 1913