[임야소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1975민(1),115]
The case holding that a successor after the closing of argument has res judicata effect on the final judgment.
The defendant paid the successful bid price on October 29, 1971 after receiving the decision of approval of the successful bid from the court on May 4, 1972, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 16, 1972. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of cancellation on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party 3 as to the real estate and the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party 4 as to the above real estate was invalid, and the above establishment registration of the non-party 4 became final and conclusive in the above court on March 10, 1972 and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff on April 7, 1972. Thus, the defendant is a successor after the closing of argument of the above final and conclusive judgment and the res judicata effect
Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act
Of the sweak-sweak Sweak Sweak Sweak Sweak Sweak Sweak Sweak
Defendant
Jeonju District Court of the first instance (73 Gohap175)
Supreme Court Decision 74Da1046 Delivered on December 10, 1974
The appeal is dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
On May 16, 1972, the Defendant followed the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was the receipt of the Jeonju District Court No. 11148 on May 16, 1972, with respect to the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, 1/3 of 41 forest land 1/3 in Jeonju-dong.
One of the costs of lawsuit is the defendant's main claim and the conjunctive claim, which is the defendant's conjunctive claim, and the defendant has the same judgment as the claim of the main claim.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
All of the plaintiff's main claim and ancillary claim are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.
In light of the fact that 1: (a) the peace-dong 1: (b) had been filed on May 25, 1970 with respect to the above 1:3rd 7rd 1:3rd 1; (c) the above 1:3rd 1:3rd 1; (d) the registration of ownership transfer was filed on May 25, 197 with the Jeonju District Court No. 15806; (d) the registration of ownership transfer was revoked on August 2, 197; and (e) the registration of ownership transfer was revoked on October 17, 197; and (e) the registration was revoked on May 16, 197 by the court of first 2; (e) the registration of ownership transfer was revoked on July 1, 197; and (e) the registration was revoked on May 17, 197; and (e) the registration was revoked on July 19, 197.
Therefore, the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant is made by the execution of the registration of establishment of a mortgage near the invalidation as seen above, and it is also the registration of invalidity of cause.
However, the defendant, first, ratified the transfer registration of ownership by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on January 22, 1972 even if the transfer registration of ownership by the non-party 3 is null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable, but this argument is not acceptable because it is against the res judicata effect of the judgment on the grounds of the transfer of the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment of the non-party 1 and 2 in wartime
Second, the defendant's registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was made by the court's decision of permission for the successful bid, which is null and void. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was made by the court's decision of permission for the successful bid. It is unfair to deny the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff and other interested parties since it is not reasonable to deny the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership in the current legal system where the registration of transfer of ownership is not granted public confidence in the real estate registration, as well as the defendant's assertion in the current legal system where the procedure was completed even though the plaintiff had sufficiently disputed its validity through appeal and reappeal during the auction procedure in the name of bona fide purchaser protection, and even if the defendant paid the successful bid price in the auction procedure without being subject to a formal objection and suspension of execution as stipulated in Article 28 (2) of the Auction Act from the plaintiff and other interested parties, the defendant's decision in the first instance of the procedure is invalid, and therefore it is not reasonable to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the final judgment.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the forest in this case. Accordingly, this claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the result is dismissed as it is without merit, and all costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim