부동산소유권이전등기
1. The Plaintiff’s action against Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S shall be dismissed, respectively.
2. The plaintiff, .
The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, P, P, Q, R, and S is a corporation established by the X clan (hereinafter "the clan of this case"). The clan of this case held title trust of some of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the defendant's fleet Y and net Z, while changing the trustee as the plaintiff corporation, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above defendants who are the heir of the deceased for the claim for the transfer of ownership due to the change of trustee under the Jeonju District Court 2015No799, Jeonju District Court 2015Ka799, which was decided in favor of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff erred in the inheritance share by omitting part of the deceased's heir's share at the time (hereinafter "the previous lawsuit"). The above defendants filed for the transfer registration of inheritance shares at the rate of shares calculated again against the above defendants.
Judgment
On the other hand, where a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person has res judicata effect on the final and conclusive judgment, and the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the person in favor of the person in favor of the other party in a lawsuit again files a lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of the person in favor of the other party in the previous suit, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in protection of rights, unless
(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1761 delivered on Nov. 10, 1987, and 2005Da74764 delivered on Apr. 14, 2006). However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above Defendants, which is identical to the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and the judgment became final and conclusive (the scope of shares to be transferred by the above Defendants, which were cited in the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit due to the omission of some inheritors in the previous suit, are larger than the scope of shares sought by the said Defendants in this case). Since the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit affects the instant case, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit shall affect the said Defendants.