The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the court below's decision, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on March 29, 1962 in the name of the non-party 1, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased non-party 3, who is the deceased non-party 2 through the non-party 2. However, on October 11, 1985, the court below ordered the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer to the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the above non-party 1's relevant documents forged. The above non-party 3 filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the registration on the ground that the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3's registration is null and void. The above non-party 3 again purchased the disputed land from the defendant, recognizing the defendant's assertion and the non-party 3 did not dispute the defendant's assertion at the date of pleading, and this judgment became final and conclusive around that day, and the above non-party 3 died on October 111, 198, the plaintiffs's.

The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment only affects the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, and the subject matter of a lawsuit and the subsequent suit act in cases where the prior suit and the subsequent suit are the same. Therefore, even if a judgment ordering the cancellation of registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer on real estate becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the registration is null and void, res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment affects only the existence of the right to claim cancellation registration which was the subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, the party who lost the lawsuit can file a claim against the other party on the ground of all different claims (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da30430 delivered on Nov. 11,

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the subject matter of a lawsuit in a prior suit is the existence of the right to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the above non-party 3's above real estate, and the subject matter of a lawsuit in this case is about the same real estate, although the subject matter of a lawsuit in the prior suit is about the same real estate, the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to sale and purchase shall be deemed to exist. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim by the plaintiffs since the claim does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the judgment in the prior suit which became final and conclusive, and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below recognized the purchase of the land of this case from the defendant around 1972 or around 6, 1973 when the above non-party 3 was brought a prior suit, and in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence. Ultimately, the argument in the lawsuit is a tree for the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts, which are all the matters of the court below's exclusive authority, and therefore, it cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)