소유권이전등기
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact of recognition is 【Evidence 7, A8, and the purport of the entire argument that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the registration of transfer of ownership, and on May 2, 2007, the Plaintiff received a judgment on May 2, 2007, stating that “the Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for the termination of title trust as of October 5, 2006 against the Plaintiff, Defendant C, Defendant F, and Defendant G as of January 12, 2007, respectively, with respect to each of the co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as of May 12, 2007, and against Defendant D as of October 5, 2006, and against Defendant H as of November 2, 2006,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 16, 2007 (U.S. District Court Decision 2006Da77111).
2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court
A. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said final judgment.
B. If the enforcement of compulsory execution has become practically difficult because the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the final judgment of this court was excessive, then it is inevitable to file a judicial claim with the same content for the interruption of extinctive prescription, regardless of whether compulsory execution was possible prior to that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu1761, Nov. 10, 1987). However, the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the final judgment of this court does not constitute a claim based on the ownership based on which the termination of trust was based (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da634, Dec. 9, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 200Da55171, May 10, 2002).
Therefore, the plaintiff does not need to file a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription for the right to claim ownership transfer registration according to the above final judgment.
3. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful.