2014Da228693 (Counterclaim) Registration of transfer of ownership

(Counterclaim) Judgment

Where the registration of preservation of a preceding record is null and void because the registration of preservation of a preceding record is not null and void, the person who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of preservation of a preceding record shall own such real estate for twenty

Even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed by possession in a public performance, it cannot be deemed as valid on the grounds that the registration for the preservation of the future or the registration for the transfer of ownership based thereon conforms to the substantive relationship, and seeking cancellation of registration based on the preservation registration for the future by asserting ownership based on the preceding preservation registration constitutes a claim for cancellation without substantive rights, or cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da63690, Feb. 14, 2008; 2010Da107064, Jul. 14, 201).

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D based on the registration number No. 11586 for the land listed in the attached list No. 3 of the lower judgment is null and void regardless of whether the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) based on the above registration of ownership transfer is consistent with the substantive rights due to the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession, etc., since registration of ownership transfer in the name of D based on

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, misapprehending the legal principles on real estate sales contract and real estate registration rules, or omitting judgment. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from

2. We examine the counterclaim ex officio. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous lawsuit identical to that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party to the previous lawsuit, the subsequent lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14,

According to the records, the defendant filed a lawsuit against B against B for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive prescription as to each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment below (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case"). The appellate court accepted the defendant's claim and "B shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive prescription on March 1, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 201343987 Decided April 4, 2014). However, B was killed on February 25, 2014, which was before the closing of argument in the above case, but the litigation procedure has not been suspended due to the death of the legal representative, and the plaintiff and Eul were dissatisfied with the above judgment as the property heir of B, but they were dissatisfied with the above judgment, which became final and conclusive on the ground of dismissal on July 24, 2014 (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da3987 Decided 2014, Jul. 23, 2014).

Examining these facts in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the part corresponding to the portion inherited by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff among the counterclaims in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, since there is no benefit in the protection of rights, since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit as to the same claim as the previous suit in favor of the final and conclusive judgment. Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim including the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares by making a judgment on the merits only without examining the existence of the inheritor following the death and the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on res judicata effect of the final

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment regarding the counterclaim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok