The costs of appeal by the Defendants shall be borne by the Defendants.

(2) The part of the original judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

(1) According to the original judgment as to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ claim for cancellation of preservation registration and the name of house, which became the name of the Defendants’ claim for cancellation of ownership of the instant building among the Plaintiff’s claim, was the Supreme Court Decision rendered on March 22, 1962, and thus, pursuant to the res judicata effect of the said final judgment, the instant building was determined as owned by the Plaintiff as of June 20, 1961, which was the date of closure of pleadings in the second instance trial prior to remand, and pursuant to the purport of No. 4 (a sales contract) and No. 26, which were the first instance judgment prior to the pleading, the ownership belongs to the above statutory provisions, and (a) the Defendants’ claim was concluded to the effect that the Defendants were not entitled to ownership from 16th day to 16th day of July 1949, which was the first instance judgment’s right to possession of the said building, and thus, the Defendants’ claim was concluded on 16th day of the pleadings.

The final and conclusive judgment is consistent with the purport of the original judgment that res judicata does not extend to the judgment on the grounds of the judgment. However, according to the above final judgment (the Daegu High Court Decision, July 11, 1961), the lower court determined as follows: (a) the building was newly constructed by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff is expected to be financed with money from the conciliation rules residing in Japan, which is the friendly birth of the Plaintiff; (c) and (d) the method of borrowing money, which was kept in cash between the Plaintiff on July 26, 1949 and the above 300,000 won; (b) the Plaintiff issued a certificate of custody under the name of the deceased and issued it to the Plaintiff; (c) presented to Japan, and (d) 3 million won to the above conciliation rules, and (d) the Plaintiff did not receive the above 300,000 won of the building from the date of the above final judgment, and thus, (e) the Plaintiff did not have the right to receive money from the above 6th anniversary of the final judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim to receive money before the above 300000 million won.

(2) As to the grounds for appeal by the defendants' attorney, the main point of the appeal is that, even if this building was confirmed as owned by the plaintiff under the Civil Procedure Act, it is practically owned by the defendants, and thus, it does not have the obligation to pay the provisional money. However, as shown in the above (1). Thus, as long as the part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration for preservation of ownership is confirmed as winning the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff, as long as the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration for preservation of ownership becomes final and conclusive as the part of the plaintiff's claim was already winning the plaintiff, the defendants are ultimately liable to pay the provisional money, and therefore

Therefore, the Defendants’ final appeal is dismissed without merit. Since the Plaintiff’s final appeal is with merit, the part against the Plaintiff among the original judgment is reversed, and this case is recognized as necessary to have the original judgment make a new trial and determination, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma