If the intervenor fails to answer the fact that he/she was present and present on the date and fails to summon him/her on the previous date, he/she shall lose his/her right to ask questions.

If the intervenor fails to answer the fact that he/she was present and present on the date and fails to summon him/her on the previous date, he/she shall lose his/her right to ask questions.

Article 140 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Lee Hong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 68Na55 delivered on April 2, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's assistant intervenor.

Determination on the first ground of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter simply referred to as the Intervenor);

According to the records, the intervenor submitted an application for intervention to the court on September 2, 1968, and served a duplicate of the application for intervention to the plaintiff and the defendant on the 3th of the same month, but the intervenor appeared on the same date without summons to the intervenor on the 9:30th of the same month prior to the 4th of the same month, and the plaintiff appeared on the 9:30th of the same month, but the next date on the 18:30th of the same month is the same as the date of pleading, and the intervenor appeared on the 9:30th of the same month and appeared on the 19:30th of the same month, and made a statement on the 19:30th of the date of pleading, the intervenor was not obliged

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The summary of fact-finding by the court below is that the name of the plaintiff's family register is ○○○, and there is no evidence to believe that the plaintiff is the plaintiff as the separate name as alleged by the plaintiff, and therefore, there is no evidence to regard the real estate as the ownership of the plaintiff (○○○). Thus, the purport of rejecting the claim for cancellation of the registration of the real estate based on the premise that the real estate belongs to the plaintiff's ownership, and there is no error in the above fact-finding by the court below, and therefore, there is no need to determine whether the non-party who was the defendant of the court of first instance and the plaintiff were the same person, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or omission

Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

As mentioned above, the court below did not recognize the fact that the real estate in this case is the Plaintiff’s ownership, so it is not necessary to determine whether the establishment of the right to collateral security was not a cause or whether the check such as the theory of lawsuit was forged or not, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of lawsuit cannot be dismissed. Therefore, the court below’s necessity is without merit. Thus, there is no ground to appeal that points out the original judgment on the facts

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

The appeal disputing the validity of the decision of the successful bid permission of this case cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case. The appeal is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri