The case holding that the intervenor does not constitute a so-called co-litigation supplementary intervention in which the intervenor is in a position to conduct litigation in conflict with the conduct of the intervenor.

In a case where the intervenor, who purchased real estate from the defendant, filed a provisional attachment and a lawsuit on the merits on the above real estate remaining in the name of the defendant as at the time when the plaintiff had a claim against the defendant, and the intervenor participated in the lawsuit, the intervenor would lose the ownership of the above real estate upon the provisional attachment. If the plaintiff won in favor of the plaintiff, the intervenor would incur damages for losing the ownership of the above real estate which completed the registration of ownership transfer after the provisional attachment, and even if the claim sought by the plaintiff was shown as false claims, the defendant would have led to the confession of the plaintiff's assertion and winning the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having been in a position to conduct litigation inconsistent with the defendant, who is the intervenor, because the intervenor's participation constitutes a

Articles 70(2) and 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na23565 delivered on September 29, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant joining the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The summary of the Intervenor’s assertion in this case is as follows. In other words, on April 24, 1990, the Intervenor purchased the instant real estate owned by the Defendant from the Defendant on April 24, 1990, and the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant on November 3, 1992, and thus, made a provisional seizure on the instant real estate remaining in the name of the Defendant at the time of the provisional seizure. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant due to the principal lawsuit as to the said provisional seizure. If the Plaintiff won the case, the Plaintiff would proceed to compulsory execution on the instant real estate based on the above provisional seizure, and if so, the Intervenor would lose ownership of the instant real estate after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer. However, even though the Defendant appears to have presented the instant claim against the Defendant as false claims, the lower court should have determined that the Intervenor led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant lawsuit and the Plaintiff’s assertion that his intervention in the lawsuit constituted a confession in the form of so-called co-litigation.

2. However, as alleged above by the intervenor, the participation in this case constitutes so-called co-litigation assistance and cannot be deemed to be in a position to conduct procedural acts inconsistent with the defendant who is the intervenor. Therefore, as long as the defendant has led to the plaintiff's assertion, the supplementary intervenor cannot contest it, and the decision of the court below which rejected the intervenor's assertion is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-litigation assistance as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)