An independent party shall make separate claims against the defendant that are inconsistent with the principal claim, and shall also have the interest in the action.

An independent party's participation must make each separate claim against the defendant that is incompatible with the principal claim, and also have the interest in the lawsuit.

Article 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and six others

Intervenor of a Party

Cheongju District Court Decision 68Na20 delivered on December 11, 1968

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the part concerning party participation and the cost of lawsuit is revoked.

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

The part of the costs of appeal from among the costs of appeal in the first instance, and those of appeal and appeal shall be borne by the intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal that the participation of the independent party by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 by the attorney is unlawful.

According to the records, the purport of participation by an independent party intervenor (hereinafter the intervenor's title) is that Nonparty 1 performed the procedure for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on February 23, 1966 concerning No. 2516, which was about No. 2516, against Defendant 1. Defendant 1 performed the procedure for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on February 23, 1966. The plaintiff and the defendants sought a judgment against the defendant country to confirm that the intervenor has the right to cultivate the above land. The above land alleged as the ground for participation was owned by Defendant 1, who was the deceased non-party 2. The intervenor purchased the above land from the above non-party 2 on April 8, 193 without completing registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 2. The defendant country requested the plaintiff to purchase the land by recognizing it as property belonging to the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff purchased the land from the defendant country to the non-party 1 with the right to purchase the land under the Farmland Reform Act.

However, in order to join a party pursuant to Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the plaintiff and the defendant of the lawsuit seeking to participate must have separate claims that are inconsistent with the main claim, and even if there is no legal interest in the lawsuit against them, if there is no legal interest in the lawsuit against them, the plaintiff's main claim cannot be acknowledged as an independent party. However, according to the intervenor's above's argument, the plaintiff's main claim can not be acknowledged as a whole. However, the intervenor's claim for cancellation of the registration against the defendant 1 and the non-party 1, and no claim is made against the plaintiff or the defendant's country. However, it is evident in the record that the intervenor's claim for confirmation of the right to cultivate as a conjunctive claim against the plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the plaintiff's right to cultivate, but it is obvious that the intervenor's claim for confirmation of the right to cultivate as a conjunctive claim against the plaintiff has no interest in confirming the plaintiff's right to cultivate. Thus, the plaintiff's application for intervention cannot be deemed unlawful. Nevertheless, the court of first instance and the court below's decision dismissed the application for intervention.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)