Where a person who has the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership or the right to claim the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer against the owner of real estate has not completed the registration, and where the title holder of the said real estate has filed a lawsuit to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership to the third party and the said third party by such protocol of protocol of protocol, and where the said protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol has been completed, the person who has the right to claim the above registration against the former owner by subrogation for the purpose of preserving the same, unless the said protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol is null and void or cancelled by any quasi-deliberation procedure, seeking the cancellation on the ground that the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the said third party is null and void, it is unlawful in violation of the res judicata effect of the said protocol of protocol of protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da3892, May 22, 199; 97Da46955, Feb. 24, 199). Furthermore, it is unlawful to seek the cancellation of other registration of transfer of ownership based on the above third party name (see Supreme Court Decision 6.

However, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) on February 13, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust with Defendant 1 and other 3, and completed the registration of ownership transfer; (b) on September 27, 191, Defendant 1 had telephone call to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the title trust termination on September 10, 191 with respect to each of the above lands; (c) on October 2, 1991, the ownership transfer registration for each of the above shares was completed in Defendant 3; (d) on the premise that the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration or the right to claim ownership cancellation registration for each of the above shares against Defendant 1 was revoked; (e) on the premise that the ownership transfer registration for each of the above shares was made in the name of Defendant 3 and the right to claim ownership transfer registration for the cancellation of the above shares; and (e) on the premise that the above ownership transfer registration for Defendant 3 actively participated in the act of Defendant 1’s breach of trust; and (e) on the list of each of the above shares in Defendant 1/46.

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had cancelled the above sales contract because the plaintiff had completed a title trust registration for the above list 8 land owned by the defendant 2, but the above defendant did not pay only part of the price and did not pay the remainder, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff's ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff and the costs

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)