(a) The case of lawsuit filed for intervention by an independent party; and

(b)if the independent party has become final and conclusive, whether it is necessary to determine the evidence of the method of the submission by the intervenor which was not invoked by the defendant;

A. As long as the intervention of an independent party is dismissed on the ground of its illegality, it is not necessary to determine the evidence submitted by the intervenor;

B. Even if there exists a separate claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the intervention of an independent party, such participation is unlawful if there is no benefit of lawsuit against either party.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da241 Decided November 16, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 4294DaDa251,252 Decided May 24, 1962

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan City

Busan District Court Decision 64Na557, 556 delivered on December 6, 1965

The part of the original judgment against the intervenor by independent party shall be reversed.

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

The defendants' appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the plaintiff and the intervenor of the independent party shall be borne by the intervenor;

The parts arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be borne by the Defendants.

First of all, we examine the legitimacy of participation by independent parties ex officio.

An independent party participating in a lawsuit must have separate claims against the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if there is a separate claim in form, if there is no benefit of lawsuit against the plaintiff and the defendant, an independent party participating in the lawsuit is illegal (Supreme Court Decision 64Da241 Decided November 16, 1965). According to the records, an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") claims against the plaintiff and the defendants to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership against the plaintiff and the defendants that confirm that the real estate in this case was owned by the intervenor. However, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the real estate in this case was owned by the intervenor before the request for participation, and it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim against the defendants in this case is recognized as a whole and used as a benefit after the request for participation was made. Thus, the plaintiff's aforementioned claim against the defendants is unlawful as the independent party of the above intervenor's participation is dismissed, and therefore, it is unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the independent party participation within the original judgment.

Next, we examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff under the name of the plaintiff on the register, the court below held that the defendants' land of this case is owned by the intervenor since it was purchased from the plaintiff on the 1942 for the creation of a lower-class labor site, and even if it is not so, the intervenor occupied the land publicly for twenty years from March 1, 1943 to the peace of ownership for twenty (20) years. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of prescriptive acquisition was asserted as the conjunctive cause of action, and the defendants' testimony of non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3 cannot be believed to be owned by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's non-party 1, non-party 2, and the non-party 4, as long as there were no other unnecessary evidences to acknowledge it, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's testimony of this case was not in violation of the rules of evidence or evidence of evidence as to the witness's non-party 1 and non-party 4.

Ultimately, the part of the original judgment against the intervenor by independent party among the original judgment is reversed without examining the intervenor's grounds of appeal, and it is clear that the application for intervention is unlawful. The Defendants' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han Sung-soo (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court