The case holding that an application for intervention by an independent party is unlawful

Since a person who has purchased a real estate but failed to register the ownership transfer cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of such real estate, since such real estate is not in his/her position to assert its ownership, it does not constitute a case where the whole or part of the subject matter of lawsuit is his/her own right, and thus,

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2435, 2436 Decided March 25, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 230DaKadd 230, Supreme Court Decision 17Nu365, Decision 72(37) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 69Da140, 1441 Decided December 9, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 97DaKad 972, Decision 17Da1477, Decision 72(42)811 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Sickerum

Hahho et al. and one other

East Maritime Chemical Industry Corporation

Sicked Sick

Daegu District Court (73Gahap246) in the first instance

The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, those arising from an appeal by the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff, and those arising from the participation by the intervenor of an independent party shall be borne by the same person.

On July 8, 1971, Defendant Nam-dong Co., Ltd. received by Busan District Court 8565 on July 8, 1971 on the real estate recorded in the attached list, and the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the same sale reservation, and the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration for establishment of collateral security based on the same sale reservation as the above registration office No. 8564, which was the receipt of the above registration office, is the procedure for cancellation of each registration for establishment of collateral security based on the same contract for creation of collateral security, and the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the termination of trust contract

The court costs are assessed against the defendants, and the independent party intervenor is the same as that of the independent party intervenor, and the plaintiff confirms that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the independent party intervenor.

With respect to the intervenor of the independent party, the defendant Nam-dong Office received from the Daegu District Court on July 8, 1971, the registration procedure for cancellation of the provisional registration to preserve the right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the same promise for sale is to be implemented, and the defendant subordinate to the above real estate is to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is the receipt of the same registry office, No. 8563 as to the above real estate, respectively.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendants. The independent party intervenor who was the independent party intervenor filed an application for participation in the trial. The defendant Nam-dong will perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 5,500,000 won by the contract for the establishment of a mortgage on July 8, 1971 as the receipt and preservation of a registry office of the Daegu District Court on July 8, 1971 as the receipt and preservation of ownership transfer due to the purchase and purchase promise, and the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 5,00,000 won by the contract for the establishment of a mortgage.

Defendant Hahhy shall perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on September 21, 1970 for the same real estate with respect to the same real estate owned by the intervenor of an independent party, and order such real estate to be registered.

It is confirmed that the above real estate is owned by an independent party intervenor in the case of the plaintiff Orderer and the same chemical industry corporation.

The court cost by this independent party participation is assessed against the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor company of the East Marine Chemical Industry, and the provisional execution is assessed against the plaintiff, the intervenor, and the defendant's claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim that the defendant's subordinate claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim that the defendant's subordinate claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim that the defendant's subordinate claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim against the above defendant's subordinate claim against the

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The independent party intervenor's claim is dismissed.

Except as otherwise provided by the plaintiff, the purport of the claim is stated.

1. First of all, it is examined whether the participation of an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " participant") who filed an application for participation in the trial is legitimate or not.

The summary of the Intervenor’s application for intervention was originally owned by the Defendant Hail, but the Nonparty 1 purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant Hail on March 3, 1970. However, on the registration of ownership transfer, it was sold again to the Intervenor Hail on July 8, 1971. However, first of all, after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Defendant Hail, it was completed in front of the Nonparty’s disease without the registration of ownership transfer, and at the same time, it was mutually agreed between the Nonparty Hahh and the Defendant Hahhh, and the Intervenor’s disease. Thus, the Intervenor’s disease claimed for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of this case’s real estate and its explanation about the omission of the above intermediate registration, and on the other hand, the Intervenor’s claim for ownership transfer registration of this case’s real estate was made in front of the Nonparty’s claim for ownership transfer registration of this case’s previous intermediate registration, and the Nonparty’s claim for ownership transfer registration of this case’s previous registration of the Nonparty.

In this case, the intervenor must make his own claim against the plaintiff and the defendant, without contradiction, because all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his own right or has a third party asserting that he was infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit as a party to the lawsuit. Thus, the intervenor must make his own claim against the plaintiff and the defendant, which cannot be compatible with the claim against the plaintiff and the defendant. Even according to the intervenor's assertion that the intervenor was sick by this case, the intervenor did not acquire the ownership of this case, but did not acquire the ownership of this case since the intervenor did not claim that the plaintiff was his own right or that part of the purpose of the lawsuit under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act is his own right. Thus, the intervenor's objection cannot be dismissed because the intervenor's assertion that the plaintiff was not a party to the lawsuit, so it does not constitute an unlawful part of the plaintiff's claim that all or part of the purpose of the lawsuit is the right of the intervenor.

2. We examine the following Plaintiff’s request:

On July 8, 1971, as stated in the purport of the claim regarding this real estate, the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of Defendant Hahho-ho on July 8, 1971, and on the same day, there is no dispute between the parties that provisional registration was made and the establishment registration was completed for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer before Defendant Hah-dong. (Inasmuch as it is an official document with respect to Defendant Namdong-dong, it can be acknowledged by entry of Gap 2

The plaintiff's representative asserts that the plaintiff's real estate is the building owned by the plaintiff, which was completed around July 1971 by the plaintiff's offering all materials and labor to 6,168,000 won of the construction cost from the defendantHahho-ho on September 8, 1969, but has not yet been paid the construction cost. However, since the ownership registration was terminated on February 15, 1973, this real estate was entrusted to the defendantHah-ho, the owner of the building for convenience and completed the ownership preservation registration on the trust in the name of the defendantHah-ho, the owner of the building, and therefore, the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the above trust contract on the real estate was filed for the defendantHah-ho. In addition, since the provisional registration and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage that was completed on the defendant Nam-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong

However, although there is no dispute over the establishment that the plaintiff constructed the new construction of the real estate in this case after being awarded a contract by Defendant Hahhhho-ho, it is recognized by the whole purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 of the evidence No. 2, and the plaintiff completed the construction of the real estate in this case by his own material and expenses, and the plaintiff has not yet been paid the construction cost, so it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff is a party member in the light of the evidence Nos. 4, 15, and 19 of the evidence No. 1, and the evidence No. 20 of the evidence No. 4, which correspond to the fact that the plaintiff owned the real estate in this case, the plaintiff's claim for this case based on the premise that the real estate in this case is owned by the same chemical industry as the plaintiff is without merit.

3. The following participant company (hereinafter referred to as the intervenor company) shall live in relation to the claim made by the East Maritime Chemical Company.

In light of the whole purport of pleadings by the parties on the evidence No. 2, No. 4-1, C, and No. 23-23 of the above building No. 7 (except for the part not trusted among evidence Nos. 4,8,20) without dispute over the establishment of the defendant 1, the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 were to establish and operate a new factory-related factory-related corporation with no title. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to establish and operate the new factory-related corporation with no title for the purpose of manufacturing and selling it. The defendant 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the building site from around 1969 to the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were to acquire the building site for the non-party 1's new factory-related corporation's construction permission for the non-party 1's new construction-related corporation's construction permission for the non-party 9's new construction permit for the non-party 1's new construction permit.

Therefore, the intervenor company's claim for this case against the plaintiff is well-grounded in seeking confirmation of the ownership of the intervenor company, and cancellation of each of the above registrations on this case's real estate against the defendant et al.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objection is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and all of the claims of the intervenor company are with merit, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff's independent party's intervention of the intervenor who filed an application for intervention in the court of appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)