[부동산소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1948민,58]
Whether res judicata has effect on the grounds for judgment
The judgment takes effect only when it is included in the main text of the judgment, and there is no res judicata in respect of the reasons for the judgment that denies or denies the claim. Therefore, res judicata of the final judgment dismissing the defendant's reputation does not extend to the reasons for the judgment that the ownership of the real estate was transferred from the defendant to the plaintiff.
Article 199 of the former Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 4282No2099)
This case is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant-appellant is revoked the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's attorney shall seek a judgment in the order of the Dong.
The method of proof of actual statement wage of both parties to the plaintiff's legal representative is that the defendant filed a claim for housing name map with the Seoul District Court (No. 2255 for mobilization short-term 4282) on the premise that the defendant is the owner of the real estate in dispute. However, on March 29, 4283, since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said house by sale with the defendant, the defendant's claim was made against the defendant on the ground that the defendant's claim was unfair, the public action in this case is reasonable to dismiss the defendant's claim, and submit the evidence No. 7 through No. 11, and evidence No. 4-1 through No. 6, and the defendant's legal representative denies the purpose of proof, but the sales contract in this case is not automatically rescinded by the initial special agreement, but automatically cancelled at the payment date of 300,000 won and the remaining amount is automatically cancelled until the same 12 p.m., the plaintiff's claim No. 1 through No. 360, and the plaintiff's answer No. 147.
First of all, in the case of the plaintiff's assertion of res judicata against the plaintiff's legal representative, it is unfair to conclude res judicata against the previous lawsuit in the main lawsuit brought by the plaintiff himself, and the original decision takes effect only if it is included in the original decision, and the res judicata against the plaintiff's claim is denied or denied. Therefore, even if the plaintiff's main decision was made with the plaintiff's main decision, res judicata against the judgment may take place only for the part dismissing the defendant's request for a clarification against the defendant, and it does not arise in the grounds for determining that the ownership of the real estate was transferred from the defendant to the plaintiff.
Next, the plaintiff's real estate (Yeung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 50, 100,000 won and KRW 1,50,000,000 which were 30,000,000 won and KRW 40,000,000,000,000 which were 1,000,000 won and 45,000,000 won and 11,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 40,000,000 won and 1,00,000 won and 3,00,00,00 won and 1,00,00 won and 3,00,00,00 won and 1,000,00 won and 1,00,00,00 won and 2,000,00 won and 3,00.
Defendant’s attorney asserted that the Defendant’s testimony of Nonparty 5, 6, 1, 2, and 3, etc. of the lower court, which correspond to the assertion, was automatically cancelled when the Plaintiff was unable to pay the remainder by 12 p.m. on September 22, 4282, a short-term payment period of KRW 300,00,00, which is the date of payment for the payment of the 300,00 won at the face value, but this case’s purchase and sale contract was established upon the Plaintiff’s refusal of payment and discussed with the Plaintiff, and that there was an agreement that the Plaintiff would automatically cancel the contract until the same 12 p.m., the Defendant’s assertion that the testimony of Nonparty 5, 6, 1, 2, and 3, etc. of the lower court’s witness Nonparty 4, who did not dispute over the establishment of the 400,000 won testimony. However, the Plaintiff’s short-term payment period of KRW 340,000,00,00.
Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)