[소유권확인][공1979.12.1.(621),12257]
After the registration of transfer of plaintiff's ownership was cancelled by a final judgment, the judgment was cancelled by a retrial and the plaintiff's ownership.
After the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership was cancelled by a final judgment, the judgment was cancelled by a retrial, but it was cancelled due to a mistake that the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was cancelled on the register, and thus, the Plaintiff holds ownership as it is
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da1127 Delivered on October 25, 1971
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
Attorney Go-tae, Lee Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2813 delivered on January 17, 1979
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the above real estate was owned by the non-party 1, the above non-party 2, and the name of the non-party 7 was sold to the non-party 2, and the registration of ownership transfer was revoked under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 7, and the above non-party 2, the registration of ownership transfer was revoked under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 7, and the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the title title of the non-party 2, the ownership.
The court below determined the following facts: (a) when the registry of this case was lost in the column 6.25; (b) the non-party private housing entered the registration of preservation of ownership on the real estate; and (c) the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership through the non-party private housing; (d) the court below rendered a final and conclusive judgment to cancel the plaintiff's registration of transfer upon the plaintiff's lawsuit against the non-party private housing; (e) the registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled due to the execution of the final and conclusive judgment; (e) the registration of transfer of the plaintiff's ownership was closed; and (e) the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant private housing; and (e) the above 71Na307 final and conclusive judgment was revoked by a new judgment (73 company10); and (e) the process of evidence verification was lawful in order to recognize that the non-party private housing's claim for cancellation of the above registration was dismissed; and (e) it cannot be found that there was any violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is no reason to deny.
In addition, a false final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect only between the parties to the lawsuit and the assignee of the lawsuit, and the effect of res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment dismissing the claim for cancellation of the registration is limited to whether there is a claim for cancellation of the registration. However, the final and conclusive judgment does not affect res judicata effect to the defendants who are not the parties to the lawsuit, but the cancellation of the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration is due to execution of the above 71Na307 decision. In today's above 71Na307 decision, even if it is cancelled on the registry, it is erroneous that it will not be cancelled even if it is cancelled on the registry. Thus, the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration of the defendant's new and conclusive judgment was cancelled, and there is no other evidence to view that the registration of the defendant's deceased's new and conclusive court, which had been cancelled on the above land, and there is no other reason to believe that the above new and conclusive judgment's new and outstanding registration would be invalid without any reason. It is also justified in the misapprehension of legal principles and reasoning of this judgment.
Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.
Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)