The requirements for party participation

A party intervention lawsuit is intended to resolve the conflicting rights or legal relations between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the third parties without contradiction. Thus, if the plaintiff's assertion itself is of the nature that the claim against either the plaintiff or either of the defendant will be dismissed due to its illegality, the party intervention application is unlawful.

Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da241 delivered on Nov. 16, 1965 (Daad1613, Supreme Court Decision 13 ②B civil 226 Decided Feb. 10, 1970, Decision 69Da73,74 delivered on Feb. 10, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 18 ② civil 62 delivered on Nov. 16, 1965, Decision 72(4)812 of the Civil Procedure Act

Maternal Materns

2.00

Gwangju Woo Cze-type Council

Sung-dong Branch of Seoul District Court (74Gahap36 (Registration of Ownership Transfer, Main Lawsuit) 74Gahap260 (registration of Ownership Confirmation, Party Participation)

The intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the party intervenor.

1. The plaintiff's purport of the lawsuit

The defendant will implement the transfer registration procedure against the plaintiff on January 24, 1972 as to the share of 3,000/12,504 out of the defendant's 1/5 public share of 3,000/12,50 of the forest land stated in the attached list.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

2. The purport of the claim by the party intervenor

On January 25, 1974, on the defendant's 1/5 public land portion as to the forest land stated in the attached list, the plaintiff performed the procedure for cancellation of the provisional disposition registration for the prohibition of disposal based on the provisional disposition decision on the 22th of the same month (Seoul Resident's District Court, Seoul Criminal District Court), which was issued by Sungnam District Court No. 1186 on the receipt of the Sungnam District Court's receipt of the Sungnam District Court, and confirmed that the defendant's 1/5

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked and the same as the purport of the claim by the parties and intervenors.

First of all, the author examines the legitimacy of the application for intervention by the intervenor of the parties (hereinafter referred to as the intervenor only).

The summary of the Intervenor’s application for intervention is that the above five persons were registered as co-owners in relation to the title trust relationship with the non-party 4 who was originally owned by the Intervenor at the time of the fact that the ownership transfer registration of the above five persons was made for each of the above registered persons’ co-ownership shares. As to the above registered persons’ co-ownership shares, the ownership transfer registration was made for inheritance in his name. On March 22, 1971 as to the 1/5 co-ownership shares of the above registered person under the name of the title trustee, the ownership transfer registration for the above real estate was made in the name of the defendant who was one of the successors of the above persons, and the above 7 persons such as the title trustee at the time of the above real estate became final and conclusive by the Seoul District Court on April 1971 on the premise that the ownership transfer registration of the above real estate was cancelled by the defendant’s claim for ownership transfer registration for the above real estate under the name of the non-party 2 who was the title trustee at the time of the above real estate.

I think, an independent party intervention lawsuit under Article 72 of the Civil Procedure Act intends to resolve the conflict between the plaintiff, the defendant and the third party's right or legal relation by asserting that all or part of the subject matter of lawsuit is one's own right or be infringed upon by the result of the lawsuit. Thus, if the intervenor's own assertion that it is not possible for the plaintiff to win the lawsuit against either the plaintiff, the defendant, and the third party, as the result of the lawsuit pending before the other party's intervention, the plaintiff's motion for intervention is not permissible because it does not meet the requirements of lawsuit as a party intervention. Thus, upon examining the plaintiff's motion for cancellation of the provisional disposition against the plaintiff, the above registration is originally executed as execution of the court's provisional disposition order (this opinion is acknowledged by the plaintiff's assertion, and it is not established by evidence No. 1). Thus, the plaintiff's motion cannot be cancelled by the plaintiff's own lawsuit or execution decision as a result of the provisional disposition or execution decision as to the plaintiff's execution decision as a result of the lawsuit.

Therefore, the intervenor's motion to intervene in the principal case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the intervenor's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)