[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1968민,246]
The objective scope of res judicata
The above final and conclusive judgment may have res judicata effect as to the right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant against the shares in real estate, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit. Therefore, in the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff, who was a party to the case, sought a judgment against the defendant, who was the party to the lawsuit, to the same effect as the purport of the claim in the previous lawsuit, it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff has no right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with the reason prior to September 3, 1965,
Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Government Branch of Seoul District Court (67A237) in the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 67A237)
(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.
(2) The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.
(3) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff in both the first and second instances.
The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.
The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership by means of sale as of December 26, 1963, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was passed through the sale as of November 18, 1963, to the plaintiff as of December 196, 100, 32, 32, 73, and 13, 32, 32, and 44, 13, 32, 32, and 13, 32, 32, and 13, 33, 300, 300.
The first and second trials filed a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the defendant.
(1) The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as the cause of the instant lawsuit is that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s share in 32 and 32 and 13 of the 37th half of the 32th half of the 32th half of the 37th half of the 32th half of the 32th half of the 32th half of the 32th half of the 37th half of the 32th half of the 1963. Nov. 20, 1963, through Nonparty 1, an agent Nonparty 1, who borrowed the 395,000 won from the Defendant with the interest of 5th of the 5th of the 395th of the 1963. The Defendant sold this real estate share to the Defendant on December 26, 1963. The Plaintiff either sold the above real estate share to the Defendant or offered it as security at the price near the 10th of the above 10th of the 10th of the 3rd of the 196th of the 3rd auction.
(2) However, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of Seoul High Court No. 64Na1246, 65Na469, which was the plaintiff's intervenor as the defendant and the non-party 2 and 8, the defendant as the defendant.
In the above case, Gap evidence Nos. 18 and 19 (one of the above evidence No. 3) and No. 20 (two evidence No. 3-6), which had no dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff's real estate ownership transfer registration, were the same as the plaintiff's above, and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration No. 64-3, which had no record of the above real estate ownership transfer registration against the defendant's 6-2, and the judgment of the court below was rendered on September 16, 1964, that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant's 6-1, which had no record of the above real estate ownership transfer registration against the defendant's 6-1, which had no record of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as the above 6-6-4, which had no record of the plaintiff's claim for the above real estate ownership transfer registration against the defendant's 9-6, which had no record of the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff.
(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's objection is unlawful and thus it must be dismissed. As such, since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, it is decided to revoke it in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)