1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Since the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking a real right based on the ownership of a building is not the ownership of the building, but the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking a name of the building, which is the real right claim, and thus, res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment dismissed in the lawsuit is limited to the existence of the right of claim for the name of the building itself, and it does not extend to the existence of the non-subject matter of lawsuit. Therefore, the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment shall not extend to the existence of the ownership of a third party who succeeded to the ownership by purchasing the building from the owner of the building and completing the registration of ownership transfer after the closure of arguments in the lawsuit for the name of the building, and in this case, the right to claim a name of the building, which is the real right claim to which the third party becomes the subject matter of lawsuit, takes place as the general effect of the ownership of the building lawfully succeeded, and it cannot be said that the name of the third party becomes a successor after the completion of arguments in the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu148, Sept. 25, 1984).

In the instant case, as determined by the court below, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 28, 1990 with respect to the instant building and received a final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant to order some of the instant building parts as a claim for exclusion of disturbance based on the ownership of the instant building. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the above Nonparty 1 on April 29, 1993, which was after the closure of arguments at the fact-finding proceedings, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 25, 193, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for the clarification of the instant building based on his ownership in the instant lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the said final and conclusive judgment would only affect the effect that the said Nonparty 1 did not have any right to request the Defendant to specify the instant building against the Defendant, and it does not affect the Plaintiff’s right to ownership and the right to claim the title of the instant building that was transferred from the above Nonparty 1 as to the existence of ownership of the instant building and the title of the instant building.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as to res judicata.

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the transfer of the building of this case to the above non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 actively participated in the act of breach of trust and the act of breach of trust, on the ground that the sales contract between the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3 was terminated on December 1, 1987 and the non-party 3's obligation to transfer ownership registration to the above non-party 4 and the non-party 4 were terminated on the ground that all the non-party 3's obligation to transfer ownership registration to the above non-party 3 and the defendant were missing on the non-performance status. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

The ground of appeal that the court below decided that the sales contract between the above non-party 3 and the above non-party 4 was rescinded is erroneous and it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)