[1] The elements for participation in prevention of harm among participation by an independent party

[2] The case holding that an application for participation in the prevention of corruption is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements

[1] In order to participate in an independent party participation, it shall be objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant in the principal lawsuit have the intent to harm the third party through the lawsuit, and that the result of the lawsuit may infringe on the rights or legal status of the third party.

[2] The case holding that, in a case where the purport and reason for participation in the prevention of death was to obtain unjust profits after the plaintiff and the defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation in the plaintiff's name as to the existing buildings because the plaintiff had already been removed and had already been removed, and the existing buildings on the same ground were originally acquired by the intervenor, and the plaintiff's collusion with the plaintiff and the defendant sought confirmation that the existing buildings are the intervenor's ownership, the application for participation did not meet the requirements for participation in the prevention of death, and thus are unlawful

[1] Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da22795, 22801 decided Mar. 8, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1196), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4097, 40984 decided Jun. 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2302), Supreme Court Decision 98Da4852, 48569 decided May 28, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1277), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12785, 12792 decided Aug. 24, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 20566)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kang-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 7 others

Defendant-Appellant 1 et al. (Attorney Kang Jong-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeju District Court Decision 2001Na222, 239 delivered on December 12, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

In light of the records, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff received a donation of 6.11m2 from the non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, who is his father, of Jeju-si ( Address omitted), of 304m2, a 66.1m2 on the ground of 304m2, a single-story roof, and there is no

2. As to the Intervenor’s grounds of appeal

In order to participate in an independent party participation, it is objectively recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant in the principal lawsuit have an intention to harm any third party through the lawsuit concerned, and that the result of the lawsuit is likely to infringe on any third party's rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da22795, 22801, Mar. 8, 1996; 95Da40977, 40984, Jun. 27, 1997; 98Da4852, 48569, May 28, 199; 200Da12785, 12792, Aug. 24, 2001).

In this case, the Plaintiff sought the implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of donation of shares in inheritance to the registered building on the building management ledger as stated in paragraph (1) against the deceased non-party 2, including the co-defendant 1 in the first instance trial, and the remaining Defendants except the non-party 1 did not dispute this, and the Plaintiff won in the first instance trial because they did not dispute this. Accordingly, the non-party 1 only remains on the building management ledger and the buildings listed in paragraph (1) are already demolished and did not exist, and the existing buildings on the same ground were newly constructed and originally acquired on the ground that they were 106 square meters of a store with the asbestos slate roof 106 square meters in a block structure, and the remaining Defendants were in collusion with the Plaintiff to obtain unjust profits after completing the registration for ownership preservation in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground that they want to obtain the above existing buildings, and at the same time, the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants were the owner of the above existing buildings (the inheritor of the court below's lawsuit was pending and taken over the proceedings).

In this case, even if the Plaintiff won the remaining Defendants except the Intervenor, if Nonparty 1 constructed a new existing building as claimed by the Intervenor, its owner is the Intervenor who is the inheritor of Nonparty 1, and thus, it is not practically impossible or hindered to realize the rights of the Intervenor or to secure the legal status of the Intervenor, and thereby, it does not affect the fact-finding and judgment as to whether the identity between the registered building and the existing building on the above building management ledger is maintained, and thus, it is not likely that the Intervenor’s rights may be infringed upon according to the outcome of the lawsuit of this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the application for intervention in the prevention of corruption of this case is unlawful on the ground that it is difficult to view that the intervenor's rights or legal status may not be infringed by the result of the principal lawsuit of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on participation

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)