(a) Requirements for participation by an independent party;

B. The case holding that Byung's independent party participation is lawful in the principal lawsuit seeking the registration of transfer of real estate ownership due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul, where Byung filed for registration of transfer due to the cancellation of title trust with respect to Eul, alleging that Eul himself/herself is a true title truster, and Gap seeks the confirmation of the existence of his/her claim for registration of transfer against Eul

(c) Whether the defect in a request for continuation of a lawsuit filed during the period for renunciation of inheritance is cured due to the expiration of the period for renunciation of inheritance;

(d) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the property of the religious order is collectively owned by the believers who belong to the religious order at the time of the division in case where the religious order is divided into two;

A. An independent party participating in a lawsuit as a party by a third party asserting that all or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right, or claiming that the subject matter of the lawsuit is infringed upon by the outcome of the lawsuit is his/her own right, and then resolving at once without contradiction between the three parties by one judgment. Thus, both parties must make separate requests and each claim must have the benefit of the lawsuit.

B. The case holding that Eul's independent party participation in Eul's claim for the registration of transfer due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul, alleging that Eul is the actual owner of real estate registered in Eul's name and sought the implementation of the registration procedure for transfer due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul, and that Byung's claim for the registration of transfer due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul is lawful, on the ground that Eul's claim for the registration of transfer due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul and the registration of transfer due to the cancellation of title trust against Eul against Eul are not recognized, and each claim is not compatible with each other, and it constitutes a case where Eul's claim can be resolved in a lump sum without contradiction by one judgment because it is not compatible with Eul's own right or legal status and it is an appropriate means to file a lawsuit to confirm Eul's claim for transfer registration to Byung for the purpose of eliminating its apprehension, and at the same time, to confirm Eul's legitimate interest in the registration of transfer to Byung, as Byung's claim for registration of transfer is legitimate.

(c) Even if there is a defect in the proceedings by accepting a request for continuation of the proceedings during the period of renunciation of succession, if three months have elapsed from the date on which the commencement of the proceedings was known without a waiver of succession, the defect in the proceedings prior to that time shall be cured.

(d) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the property constitutes a collective ownership of the believers who belong to a religious order at the time of the division, unless there is a special agreement as to the ownership of the property, in case where the religious order is divided into two categories due to the conflict of opinions about the property's change of the name of the previous doctrine and the religious order, in light of the financial resources for the acquisition of the real estate under the title trust of the religious order, the purpose of acquisition, and the circumstances in which the ownership transfer registration has been completed, as the new believers who belong to the religious order acquired the money from their believers to prepare a foundation for food care and to lead a decent religious life.

a.B. Article 72(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act; Article 211(2)4 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 275 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da21145, 21152 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,670). Supreme Court Decision 91Da6832,6849 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991,7) (Gong1757) 93Da5727,5734 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1569), 92Da49362, 49379 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 65Sang, 650). Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da26789 delivered on December 16, 1992 (Gong293, Apr. 196, 199)

Han Sosan Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Kim Sung-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Korea Association for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na2980, 2997 (Intervention) decided December 7, 1994

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

An independent party participating in a lawsuit as a party by a third party who asserts that the whole or part of the subject matter of the lawsuit is his/her own right or is likely to infringe upon his/her rights based on the result of the lawsuit, and then seeks to resolve in a lump sum without contradiction by a single judgment, so a separate claim shall be made against the plaintiff and the defendant who are the previous party, and each claim shall have the benefit

According to the records, among each real estate of this case, the plaintiff, who is the actual owner of the real estate listed in the annexed Table 11 of the judgment below, was in title trust with the deceased non-party 1, who claimed that it was terminated, and sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the title trust against the defendants, who are the parties to the lawsuit of this non-party 1. Accordingly, the intervenor is himself not the plaintiff but the above non-party 1, and the plaintiff was in title trust with the above non-party 1. The plaintiff sought confirmation of the existence of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the title trust of this case, and sought implementation of the registration procedure

In the above case, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer following the cancellation of the title trust with the defendants and the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer due to the cancellation of the title trust with the defendants against the defendants can not be accepted, and each claim is not compatible with one another, and this constitutes a case where the plaintiff's right or legal status is denied by the plaintiff and the plaintiff can be resolved at one time without contradiction. It is an appropriate means to bring a lawsuit to confirm that there is the plaintiff's claim for the above registration of transfer against the defendants in order to eliminate the uncertainty. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer against the defendants and the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the existence of the above registration of transfer is a legitimate claim for the confirmation of the existence of the above registration of transfer is legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da148, Mar. 8, 198; 91Da21145, Dec. 24, 191; 91Da21152, Dec. 15, 1991).

The judgment of the court below with the above purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for independent party participation, such as the theory of lawsuit. The ground of appeal is without merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below, which accepted a request for succession of a lawsuit filed by the Defendants within 3 months from the date on which the inheritor is entitled to waive the inheritance pursuant to Article 1019 of the Civil Procedure Act, although the inheritor is unable to take over the lawsuit until he is able to waive the inheritance pursuant to Article 211(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, is illegal. However, although the defendants' request for succession of the lawsuit in this case was in violation of the Civil Procedure Act and the proceedings are procedural defected by the takeover, even if 3 months have passed from the date on which the inheritance was commenced without giving up the succession during the proceedings, it is reasonable to view that the defect in the proceedings prior to the commencement of the lawsuit was cured (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da974, May 26, 1964), and there was no evidence to deem that there was a waiver of the inheritance by the defendants under the record, and it is obvious that 3 months have passed since the commencement of the succession was continued during the proceedings in this case.

(c) On the fourth point:

The decision of the court below is just in holding that the Korea Association of the Korea Culture and Arts Arts established by Nonparty 2 based on its evidence held the title trust of the above real estate under the name of the deceased Nonparty 1, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to title trust or the lack of reasons as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3 and the Intervenor’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the financial resources for acquiring each real estate of this case, the purpose of acquiring ownership, the process of the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1, etc., each real estate of this case is acquired by the non-party 2's contribution from the Do governor to prepare a foundation for food care and to lead a decent religious life, and the non-party 2's trust belonging to the non-party 2 is jointly owned with the property of the non-party 2. The non-party 2's religious order's opinion on the change of the name of the previous religious order and the change of the name of the religious order is divided into the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's religious order (the non-party 2's non-party 2's religious order and the non-party 1's new religious order's properties are jointly owned with the new religious order at the time of the division of the religious order. Thus, the judgment of the court below is without merit and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)