According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the above real estate was transferred to the non-party 1 who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, and that the non-party 2 was subject to the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, and that the non-party 2 was subject to the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 and the non-party 1, who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who acquired the above non-party 2's original real estate under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2000,00 won.

However, according to the original judgment and the records, the defendant company filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 1 for the above non-party 1's transfer registration is almost important property belonging to the defendant company's business property, and the non-party 2, who was the representative of the defendant company at the time of August 14, 1964, sold it to the above non-party 1 without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the defendant company's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 1's name, which was transferred as the owner of the above real property, is 00, and the above non-party 1's claim for cancellation of the above non-party 1's ownership transfer registration against the above non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 1's ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 1's claim for cancellation.

Therefore, a person who was established a right to collateral security, which is the security right to the above real estate, after the settlement is made by a person who bears a real right obligation to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership through judicial reconciliation, shall be deemed to fall under a successor after the closing of argument under Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The effect of the protocol of compromise shall extend to a successor who is not aware of the existence of the protocol of compromise pursuant to Article 206 and Article 204 of the same Act. Therefore, the defendant company granted the execution clause to the plaintiff bank on February 12, 1971 by assignment of the above protocol of compromise to the plaintiff bank on February 15, 1971, and then cancelled the registration of creation of each right to collateral security under the name of the plaintiff bank and the execution clause

Therefore, the court below which accepted the plaintiff company's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the principal case against the defendant Construction Industry Co., Ltd., and provisional registration cancellation claim against the defendant 2 on the premise that the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the principal case in the name of the plaintiff bank under the succeeding execution clause is illegal on the ground that the plaintiff bank is not a successor in accordance with Article 204 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the res judicata effect of the above protocol of compromise, on the ground that the plaintiff bank is not a successor in accordance with the above article 204 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, shall not be exempted from this point of view

Therefore, since the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendants is omitted and the appeal is discussed, the case is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)