After making a decision on the merits, the order to dismiss the claims of an independent party intervenor

It can be seen to the purport that the appellate court rejected the intervenor's claim in the final decision of the merits that rejected the independent party's claim.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da80,81 Decided July 22, 1967

Hongcheoncheon

1. An independent party intervenor, appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-Appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3347, 3348, 3349 decided July 23, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the intervenor's attorney at the nominated election of the intervenor

The court below rejected the evidence that the plaintiff entered into the real estate sales contract of this case with the defendant as the representative of the intervenor designated in the name of the intervenor, and thus the purchaser of the real estate of this case did not believe the evidence consistent with the intervenor's assertion. The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant as the purchaser without any clear statement to the defendant that the plaintiff would purchase the real estate of this case from the defendant for the intervenor designated in the name of the intervenor, or purchase it for the intervenor, and the defendant also concluded the sales contract with the plaintiff with the knowledge that the plaintiff was the true purchaser. The court below was just in light of the records, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the court below, or there was no error of incomplete deliberation or incomplete reasoning. Thus, the appeal is groundless.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the Intervenor Han Han-chul

According to the records, in this case where the plaintiff seeks the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate of this case for sale on the ground of December 11, 1977 against the defendant, the intervenor Han Han-man (hereinafter referred to as the "second-man") asserts that the plaintiff himself as the representative of the intervenor Jung-dae (hereinafter referred to as the "first intervenor") and as the beneficiary of the contract for the third party between the defendant and the plaintiff (which means that the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the relation of the above contract for sale and purchase as to the third party (which means that the above contract will continue to exist at present). The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of ownership to Han-man as the second intervenor due to the above sale and purchase as the representative of the first intervenor 1 as well as that of the plaintiff Han-man, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim made by the second intervenor 2 as the plaintiff's representative of the first intervenor and the second intervenor 1 as the purchaser's representative of the second intervenor. Thus, the court below's assertion that the plaintiff's claim for the second intervenor's participation was justified.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)