소유권보존등기말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of registration of initial ownership in the name of the Defendant as to all the land indicated in the separate sheet, such as the purport of the claim.
Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of the land listed in the attached list Nos. 1 through 3, and dismissed the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of the land listed in the attached list No. 4 through 9 (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case" in the case of all the land listed in the attached list Nos. 4 through 9 (hereinafter referred to as "the attached list Nos. 4 to 9).
Since only the plaintiff appealed against this, the scope of the judgment on the trial is limited to the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation concerning the land of this case.
2. The defendant's prior defense on the merits of Q against the defendant et al. on the land Nos. 4 and 5 in the lawsuit of this case against the defendant et al. on the premise that Q's co-inheritors filed a lawsuit for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da416210) on the premise that Q's co-inheritors was B, but the judgment was rendered against the plaintiff and became final and conclusive around that time, the part on the land Nos. 4 and 5 in the lawsuit of this case on the ground that Q's co-inheritors's land Nos.
On the other hand, since the lawsuit in this case differs from the previous lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit does not extend to the previous lawsuit, and in case where the final judgment in the previous lawsuit is the judgment against the plaintiff, the final judgment in the previous lawsuit shall not be judged inconsistent with the final judgment in the subsequent lawsuit, and therefore, the part concerning the land Nos. 4 and 5 in the previous lawsuit in this case shall not be deemed unlawful.
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
3. Basic facts
A. The land of this case No. 4 and No. 5, which was the land prior to the subdivision of the land, is 91 JJ, Chuncheon-gun, and the land prior to the subdivision of the land of this case No. 6. K.