B. Whether the plaintiff's standing to sue the third party's objection, and whether the plaintiff's successor, who is indicated as the defendant's successor according to the execution clause for succession, raises an objection against the third party's objection (negative)

B. The standing to sue against a third party is a third party asserting that he/she has the right to restrain the transfer or transfer of the subject-matter of execution, and the third party means a person other than the creditor, the debtor or his/her successor on the title of debt or the execution clause, and the lawsuit seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the title of debt by a person who is indicated as the defendant's successor due to the succession execution clause cannot be said to be an action by a third party.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to No. 1:

In a case where a claim for exclusion of interference based on the ownership of a site was made and a final and conclusive judgment is rendered in favor of a party by seeking removal of the building on the ground, if a person has completed the ownership transfer registration based on the registration of the ownership transfer claim completed before the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, he shall be deemed a successor after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment under Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Seoul High Court Decision 88Na6865 decided on February 23, 1990 for the defendant's non-party 1's removal of the building, etc., and the non-party 2 obtained provisional registration for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration from the above non-party 1 on January 28, 1987, and completed the principal registration of ownership transfer registration as of March 9, 190. On the same day, the plaintiff again received the ownership transfer registration from the above non-party 2. The defendant obtained the above non-party 1's succession execution clause for the plaintiff as the successor of the above non-party 1 on July 28, 1990. The judgment of the court below was just in the judgment of the court below that the non-party 2's provisional registration's removal or removal of the above provisional registration after the order of priority of the provisional registration was made, and it did not affect the above legal principles as to have become invalid.

The Supreme Court Decision 69Da2227 delivered on July 28, 1970 held by the party members cited in the theory of the lawsuit revealed the legal principle that the res judicata effect does not extend to a person who has completed the ownership transfer registration on the basis of a provisional registration completed before the closing of argument in the final judgment, and it is not appropriate in this case.

In addition, the theory also states that the defendant has no substantive right to seek removal of the building of this case, but as seen above, it cannot be said that the defendant has no substantive right to seek removal of the building of this case, so long as compulsory execution by the defendant is based on an executory exemplification of the judgment.

There is no error of law as pointed out in the judgment below.

With respect to the second ground:

The standing to sue in a lawsuit by a third party is against a third party who asserts that he/she has the right to restrain the transfer or transfer of the subject-matter of the execution, and the third party means a person other than the creditor, debtor or his/her successor in the name of debt or execution clause, and the third party's lawsuit seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the name of debt may not be subject to a lawsuit by a third party.

The judgment of the court below is just in determining the plaintiff's claim of this case as a lawsuit of objection against the grant of execution clause, and there is no error of law as to the non-claimed portion as alleged in the arguments

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)