[2] In case where a lawsuit on real right to real estate under Article 11 (4) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name was filed before the enforcement of the Act or during the grace period, and the judgment was sentenced to the judgment, but the second lawsuit was filed for the conversion of real name after the expiration of the grace period, whether it constitutes "litigation on real right to real estate" (affirmative with qualification)

[3] In a case where a lawsuit as to the real right to real estate under Article 11 (4) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name was filed before or during the grace period, but such lawsuit was withdrawn, and then a lawsuit is filed again after the grace period under Article 11 (1) of the same Act has expired, whether the lawsuit constitutes "litigation as to the real right to real estate" (negative)

[2] The purport of Article 11 (4) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name stipulates the grace period for the conversion of real name. The purport of this Act is to prohibit real estate title trust, the validity of which has been recognized through a long-term precedent, from implementing the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, and to prevent social confusion that may arise from title trust agreements and judicial effectiveness of registration based thereon, and to ensure legal stability, thereby allowing title truster to temporarily convert real name by means of the cancellation of title trust, etc. within that period. Thus, if a title truster claims that he is a party and is a public person and is confirmed as the actual right holder, it is sufficient to say that the title truster has a lawsuit for the real right to real estate concerned, and further, if the title truster raised a lawsuit for the conversion of real name before or during the grace period of the same Act and the judgment was rendered, and as a result, it cannot be said that the second lawsuit for the conversion of real name becomes effective within a considerable period of time after the second lawsuit for the conversion of real name becomes final and conclusive.

[3] Although a lawsuit concerning the real right to real estate was instituted before or during the grace period under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name was enforced, if the lawsuit was withdrawn for any reason, the effect of withdrawal of the lawsuit shall be deemed to have never existed from the beginning, and the existence of the lawsuit itself is not recognized. Thus, even if the same lawsuit was filed again after the grace period under Article 11 (1) of the same Act has expired, barring any special circumstance, the lawsuit concerning the pertinent real estate shall not be deemed to continue through a previous suit, unless there is a special circumstance, or the lawsuit concerning the real right to real estate shall not be deemed to fall under the "litigation" under the same Act because the previous suit and the subsequent suit are integrated as a whole, and this point shall be deemed to have

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit after the final judgment on the merits of the lawsuit as to the same lawsuit and re-instigations the lawsuit, and it is unlawful as it is an abuse of the right. The court below rejected the defense of this case on the ground that it is difficult to view the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case as abuse of the right merely because it does not violate the contract of this case, which is the premise for the withdrawal of the previous lawsuit, and thus, if the contract of this case was cancelled or invalidated because the defendants and the non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 2 did not comply with the contract of this case, which is the premise for the withdrawal of the previous lawsuit, and the interests of protection of rights are different because the lawsuit of this case and the previous lawsuit of this case are different because they are not the circumstances requiring the institution of lawsuit, and therefore there is a benefit to seek as a lawsuit on the substantive rights of the plaintiff, and therefore it is difficult to see that the lawsuit of this case is abuse of the right.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

Article 11(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate Act") provides that the existing title truster as at the time of the enforcement of the said Act shall carry out his/her real name registration within a grace period of one year, and Article 11(4) of the same Act provides that "where litigation as to the real right of real estate is brought to a court before the enforcement of the Act or during the grace period, the suspension period shall be extended within one year from the final and conclusive judgment (including cases having the same effect as this)," while Articles 12(1) and 4(1) of the said Act provide that the suspension period for conversion of real name shall be extended within 7 years from the date of the said litigation to the date of the enforcement of the said Act, and that if the said litigation is not carried out again within 10 years after the date of the said litigation, the title truster shall be deemed to have no legal effect for the conversion of real estate under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name as at the time of the enforcement of the Act."

With respect to the defendants' defense that the title trust agreement of this case became null and void after the grace period under the above Act has expired, the court below rejected the above defense on the ground that the dispute on the land of this case continues to exist as long as the first lawsuit was filed during the grace period under the Real Estate Real Name Act, and the previous title trust agreement remains valid even during the continuation of the lawsuit of this case on the extension of the series of lawsuits started from the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff had won the lawsuit against the defendant et al. during the grace period under the Real Estate Real Name Act, if the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit to believe that the trustee would sell the land of this case and deliver the price to the plaintiff, but the trustee has failed to implement the agreement, and the trustee has filed a lawsuit again against the defendant et al. for the registration of ownership transfer.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff filed a prior suit for the registration of transfer of ownership on June 28, 1996, which was the grace period under the above law (up to June 30, 1996), and withdrawn the lawsuit on October 7, 1996, which was after receiving the judgment of the first instance court. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of nullity of withdrawal on October 9, 1998, which was two years after the date of withdrawal of the lawsuit, but was sentenced to the dismissal on February 10, 199. The plaintiff filed an application for the designation of a date for the previous lawsuit with the same court on September 1, 199, but the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of transfer of ownership on September 29, 199 only for the cancellation of title trust. According to the above legal principles, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as "the entire lawsuit concerning the land of this case" or "the entire lawsuit cannot be seen as a lawsuit concerning the title trust."

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the effect of the existing title trust agreement shall continue to exist effectively even during the continuation of a series of lawsuits filed under the premise that the lawsuit on the land of this case is pending through a prior suit under the premise that the lawsuit on the land of this case is pending through a prior suit, even while the lawsuit of this case commenced during the grace period under the above law, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of Articles 11 and 12 of the Real Estate Real Name

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)