Whether the registration of transfer of ownership made by a final and conclusive judgment that became the object of the appeal by filing an appeal for subsequent completion is null and void.

Even in the case where the plaintiff files a subsequent appeal against the final and conclusive judgment, the effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall not be excluded until the judgment that became the object of appeal for dissatisfaction by the final and conclusive appeal is revoked. Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership made based on the final and conclusive judgment shall not be deemed null and void by the final and conclusive judgment.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea National Institute of Public Research and Development, a foundation

Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 76Na250 delivered on September 16, 1976

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the registration of ownership transfer in the opinion of the court below was made under the name of the defendant on June 9, 1969 with respect to the real estate in question under the plaintiff's name, the Busan District Court 68Da4779 decided on March 18, 1969 that the defendant filed an objection against the plaintiff, and the court rendered a final judgment in favor of the defendant on March 18, 1969. The above case is not served on the non-party at the time of the plaintiff corporation's filing date, and the court ordered the service by public notice ex officio, and the judgment was delivered to the plaintiff by public notice and the original copy of the judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 1975, the plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion of litigation at the appellate court's appellate court's 75Na258 decided on July 16, 1975, and the plaintiff's appeal cannot be dismissed and the decision of the court below was rejected as the plaintiff's remaining in favor of the Busan District Court.

Even though the original copy of the defendant's favorable judgment rendered on March 18, 1969 as to the case 68Ga4779 delivered to the plaintiff by public notice, if the plaintiff had tried to file an appeal period, such judgment cannot be cancelled or changed by means of ordinary methods of appeal within the pertinent litigation procedure. Thus, the above judgment shall be deemed to have res judicata effect as a final and conclusive judgment (the same purport shall apply to the original decision) and even if an appeal is filed for subsequent completion of the final and conclusive judgment (the final and conclusive judgment shall not be excluded by the final and conclusive judgment), until the final and conclusive judgment (the final and conclusive judgment) which became the object of appeal by the appeal is revoked.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case made in the name of the defendant was null and void by a final and conclusive judgment on the plaintiff's motion for the completion of the above final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant, and that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case was made in the name of the defendant for the real estate in this case, and that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case was null and void by a final and conclusive judgment shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall not be exempted from the reversal in this respect without making a decision on the remaining arguments. Accordingly, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-hee (Presiding Justice)