Since the intervenor did not register the acquisition of the building ownership, even if he/she can win the defendant, he/she cannot claim the ownership against the plaintiff and whether the party's participation is appropriate.

If an independent party participation is lawful, a request shall be made between the defendant and the plaintiff.

Articles 72 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Development Bank

Korea

Full-time (Attorney Allocation-at-Law)

Daegu High Court Decision 4294No674, 675 delivered on December 28, 1961

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant shall be dismissed.

The original judgment shall be reversed with respect to the part requested by an independent party intervenor's participation.

An independent party intervenor shall reject the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor.

The portion arising between the plaintiff and the defendant among the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the portion arising between the independent party intervenor and the original defendant shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are as stated in the attached Form of the Reasons for Appeal, and the answer of the party intervenor and his/her attorney shall be as stated in the subsequent written reply, respectively.

First of all, the appropriateness of participation by independent parties should be examined and seen ex officio.

In this case, the plaintiff asserted that he purchased the building in question from the defendant on December 15, 1960 and filed a claim against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the building. The independent party intervenor asserted that he purchased the building in question from the defendant on March 22, 1954, which was pending in the Busan District Court of Busan, the first instance (hereinafter simply referred to as the intervenor's title), and that the independent party intervenor applied for the participation of the defendant and filed a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale to the defendant on the ground that the purpose of the lawsuit belongs to the intervenor's ownership. It is evident by the plaintiff and the intervenor itself.

I think, the intervenor under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right or is subject to infringement of rights by the outcome of the lawsuit between others, and therefore, it is necessary that the intervenor filed a request for intervention by asserting that it is a case under the former part of the above Article of the Act. However, in light of the purport that Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for the intervention of an independent party, applies mutatis mutandis the provision of Article 63 of the same Act concerning necessary co-litigation, the judgment by intervention shall be confirmed only jointly and severally, and the res judicata effect shall not conflict with each other. Thus, according to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff's claim for registration of transfer of ownership from the defendant that purchased the dispute building as mentioned above. Since the intervenor did not register the acquisition of ownership of the building, the intervenor cannot claim the plaintiff's ownership, even if the defendant is unable to win the lawsuit against the defendant, it is clear that the court below's independent part of the lawsuit cannot be accepted by the plaintiff.

Therefore, this case is inappropriate for the reasons that the intervenor's application for intervention by the independent party is explained above, and this is dismissed.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Appeal

In full view of the evidence, the court below did not err in recognizing that the defendant revoked the disposition of the public sale of this case against the plaintiff on December 15, 1960 as effective as the plaintiff on June 14, 1961, and as long as the administrative judgment that revoked the disposition of the defendant's selling to the intervenor's YE does not dispute between the original defendant and the original defendant, it cannot be viewed as the revocation of the administrative disposition that is incidental to the theory of lawsuit No. 5, even if there is an entry the same as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the appeal on the premise of such assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's application for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags