1. As to the facts recognized in a trial of another case, the attitude of the precedent is that the facts recognized in the already-established civil or criminal judgment, even though they are not subject to detention in another civil procedure, are sufficiently binding evidence unless there are special circumstances that make it impossible to employ them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2832, 2833, Mar. 28, 1989), the former, and the latter are the same as the parties, and the facts that form the basis of the dispute are the same, but the same is also the same in cases where a new claim can be filed as a result that does not conflict with the res judicata.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and evidence Nos. 7-1 (written complaint) without dispute over the establishment of the deceased, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case against the defendant NB on September 13, 1985, and filed a lawsuit claiming cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the same defendant on December 30, 1981, but the first instance court ( Busan District Court 85Gahap270) and the second instance court (Seoul High Court 86Na823) lost all of the plaintiff's claim against the deceased on June 2, 1987. According to the appellate court's ruling (Evidence No. 2), it is difficult for the appellate court to acknowledge that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case with the funds of the deceased on the ground that there was no obligation to purchase the land of this case to purchase the land of this case from the non-party No. 1 to the above non-party No. 1981, Dec. 14, 1981.

3. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim for this case against the defendant NIB conflicts with the res judicata effect of the above final judgment, on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim for this case is sought to cancel the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant, such as the restoration of ownership to the plaintiff's heir, or to register the ownership transfer to the plaintiff's name, pursuant to the agreement with the plaintiff, and on the other hand, on the ground that the subject matter of the lawsuit is different, the plaintiff was solicited to purchase the land of this case from the deceased, and on November 20, 1981, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the plaintiff and disposed of 33,40,000,000 won in total, and delivered 333,40,000,000 won in total to the plaintiff, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was made within six months after the plaintiff's heir's completion of the ownership transfer registration agreement with the plaintiff's heir.

4. However, as a result of examining the records, No. 1 and No. 2 (No. 2) among those adopted by the court below in this case, are related to the registration relation to the site of this case and the status relation between the defendant New York and the deceased, and each of the evidence No. 3 (No. 3) was used as documentary evidence in the civil records of the previous lawsuit, and its credibility or probative value is not acknowledged in the judgment of the relevant lawsuit.

On the other hand, the testimony of Park Jong-chul evidence 4-1 to 4 and the witness at the court of first instance was newly examined in this case, but the above Park Jong-chul was a witness who was given a testimony (as evidence 3-38) in the previous lawsuit as the plaintiff's wife, but was not new.

The plaintiff's cashier's checks of KRW 10,00,00 which are confirmed to have been withdrawn on December 21, 1981 from the bill custody passbook (Evidence 3-5) of Busan Investment Finance Corporation (Evidence 3-6) to the bill custody passbook (Evidence 3-75) of the plaintiff's Busan Investment Finance Corporation (Evidence 4-3-3) are deposited in the deposit account book of the Gangseo-si, which is the position of the seller of the land of this case, and the first instance court's ambling witness also testified such contents. However, according to the records, although the plaintiff stated that he paid the purchase money in cash in the criminal complaint case related to this case, the plaintiff did not have asserted that he paid part of the purchase money as the above cashier's checks (Evidence 3-9-9), and there was no testimony of the previous ambling 300,000 won (Evidence 3-10,000 won) and there was no testimony of the above ambling 30,000.

In doing so, it is difficult to view that the above evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4 was newly submitted in the lawsuit of this case and again testified that it is the above stuff, and it constitutes a case where there are circumstances to find facts different from the facts recognized in the previous lawsuit.

It is not clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff would return the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff after six months from the date of the title trust under the old title trust that the Plaintiff sold the house within six months and the house had many taxes, such as capital gains tax, etc., and that it would have been given KRW 33,400,000 to purchase fake real estate in gold 21,00,000.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, but it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)