Whether a lawsuit seeking extradition against an illegal occupant is a requisite co-litigants or not;

In the case of a claim for the delivery of a co-owned article, if there are conflicting judgments, there may be time when the objective of the request for delivery can not be achieved, but it can not be said that it is a necessary co-litigation only if it is actually necessary.

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

In-depth (Attorney Implie on Conditions of Attorney)

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 65Na436 delivered on October 18, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s first ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney;

Since possession is an objective relationship that actually controls an object, and a common possession is in fact controlled by several persons, each co-owner cannot return only a part of the object. It is sufficient that each co-owner claims the delivery of the object to each co-owner as well as to return the whole possession, or if the co-owner claims the delivery of the object, it is not a legal requirement that the co-owner may demand the delivery of the object. (In a case where the co-owner claims the delivery of the object against all the co-owners, if there are conflicting judgments, the object of the claim for delivery can not be achieved, but it is not a necessary co-litigation.) In this case, the plaintiff and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court as co-defendant 1 of the above defendants, who are co-defendant 1 of the above defendants, and they are co-defendant 1 of the above defendants' joint possession, and the plaintiff won in the first instance court, which is the result of the plaintiff's judgment in the first instance court, and it is not justified in the appeal against the defendant.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant did not possess the subject matter of this case, and rather, by the timely evidence, the defendant sold it to the Kim Byung-jin and possessed the subject matter of this case at present. There is no error in law by examining the records and the above evidence, and even if the court below did not clarify the same point as the theory of lawsuit, or did not allow the above Kim Byung-tae to take over the litigation procedure, it cannot be said that there was no error in law. In addition, even if the court below erred in the recognition of the seller of the above Kim Byung-jin, even if the court below erred in the recognition of the seller of the above Kim Byung-hwan, it cannot

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)