소유권이전등기
1. Defendant Republic of Korea’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea are the Defendant.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendants for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, which was primarily caused by the restoration of real name, and the Defendant Republic of Korea filed a claim for damages as a result of tort if the aforementioned main claim is dismissed.
The first instance court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants, and accepted part of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims against the defendant Republic of Korea.
As to this, only the Defendant Republic of Korea appealed against the cited portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim among the conjunctive claims.
(Plaintiffs appealed on September 30, 2015 on the dismissal part of the conjunctive claim, but withdrawn an appeal on June 7, 2016). The Plaintiffs’ primary claim against the Defendants and the ancillary claim against Defendant Republic of Korea are in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation relationship under Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Where one of the main co-litigants or preliminary co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claims against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal shall be subject to adjudication as it is transferred to the appellate court, and in such a case, the subject of adjudication on the appeal shall be determined by taking into account the necessity of the unity of conclusions between the main and preliminary co-litigants
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355, Feb. 24, 2011). Therefore, inasmuch as the part of the claim against the primary Defendants by an appeal filed by the conjunctive Defendant Republic of Korea was transferred to the trial, and the scope of the trial of this Court was determined together with this judgment.
In addition, according to the precedent that recognized the method of this trial rather than the method of participation, the time of final decision should be determined.
2. The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the basic facts are stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance.