What must first be determined in this case is whether the intervenor’s petition is obscure or not. The intervenor, in his petition, stated that the land, according to the document certifying beneficial use of land (Nor Sor 3 Kor), number 1906, that was seized, is not community property of the defendant, but is separate property of the intervenor, and that the intervenor had received the land from his ancestors. Furthermore, he stated that the plaintiff had not filed an action against the intervenor, and to request that the court release the seized property. The intervenor’s petition clearly indicates the intervenor’s charge that the seized land is not the property of the defendant or community property, but is the separate property of the intervenor.  The intervenor attached the document of land acquisition to the petition which is deemed a part of the petition. There was a request for enforcement and claims for the charge according to the Civil Procedure Code section 172, paragraph 2. When and how the intervenor acquired the land from his ancestors are details that the intervenor was able to provide in the trial, and not necessary to explain in his petition. Therefore, the plaintiff’s petition is not obscure. The plaintiff’s appeal on this issue has no basis.

The last issue in the plaintiff’s appeal concerns the intervenor’s right to petition for release of the seized land. The intervenor testified during the counter questioning that the defendant used as security the land to bail an alleged offender in the presence of the inquiry official, and the intervenor had provided consent in writing to use the disputed land as security, and had also provided a document certifying that if damages occurred from bailing the alleged offender, the intervenor consented to be liable. The intervenor’s testimony corresponded to the plaintiff’s testimony. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the intervenor was aware and consented to the defendant’s use of the disputed land as security for bailing the alleged offender. When the defendant breached the bail contract and the court ordered the defendant to make payment for the debt according to the bail agreement, the defendant failed to make payment. The plaintiff is authorized to seize the disputed land to force the payment of debt, regardless of whether the disputed property is community property or separate property. Therefore, the intervenor cannot claim that the disputed land is separate property or petition for the release of the disputed land. The intervenor has no rights to file a motion because he is employing his rights in a dishonest manner.  It is unlawful according to the Civil and Commercial Code, section 5, and this problem relates to law concerning peace and order of the public. The Supreme Court is authorized to consider this issue based on the Civil Procedure Code, section 142 (5), and section 246 and 247. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to release the seized property as two lower courts have judged. The plaintiff’s appeal has basis.”

Judgment reversed. The intervenor’s petition is dismissed.