beta
(영문) 대법원 1962. 2. 8. 선고 4294민상205 판결

[소유권확인,방해예방][집10(1)민,089]

Main Issues

The objective scope of res judicata

Summary of Judgment

Although a request for the confirmation of ownership of a specific object was filed together with the request for the confirmation of ownership, the judgment of the request for the confirmation of ownership is unlawful as a matter of course to dismiss the part of the request for confirmation of ownership.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Bentently

Defendant-Appellee

Gangwon-gu et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 60Da447 delivered on January 12, 1961, 200

Text

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are as follows.

Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The final judgment shall have res judicata effect only in the case included in the text.” The main text of the judgment is that the court explicitly expressed the conclusion of the judgment on the existence or absence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit from the party to the lawsuit in the case of the lawsuit, and it is interpreted that at the same time, it makes it clear what extent of res judicata effect of the judgment should be stated in the judgment separate from the grounds of the judgment, at the same time so that it can be clearly known that what extent of res judicata effect of the judgment is within a certain scope can be expressed clearly. Therefore, res judicata effect of the judgment is essential to be established only in the case of the decision-making theory on the existence or absence of legal relations which are the subject matter of lawsuit, and it is necessary for the court to judge whether there is res judicata effect or all other indirect decisions on the subject matter of lawsuit, and as such, the plaintiff claims for ownership confirmation on the subject matter of lawsuit on the premise that ownership of the subject matter of lawsuit has been based on the premise that it does not extend res judicata effect on the judgment.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)