[1] The probative value of a fact recognized in a civil judgment which became final and conclusive in a civil trial

[2] The case holding that, in a final and conclusive civil judgment, where it is acknowledged that a part of the structure, etc. of the previous building is changed to the extent that it can be recognized as identical to the existing building, it cannot be rejected without a reasonable reason, and it is difficult to view it differently due to the changes in the number of buildings

[1] Even though it is not bound by the facts established in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., the facts established in the already established civil cases shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reasons. In particular, the facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are the same as the parties to the dispute and are the basis of the dispute are the same, but it is more so where a new claim can be filed as a result of the difference in the subject matter of lawsuit and not contrary to res judicata.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view a different circumstance solely on the ground that, in a final and conclusive civil judgment, a partial structure, etc. is changed to the extent that it can be recognized as identical to a existing building, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reason, and a change in the number of buildings can coincide with the current state through a merger registration or extension of a building under the Registration of Real Estate Act.

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da52768 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3728) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da48964, 48971 Delivered on March 26, 2009

Plaintiff (Law Firm Squa, Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Intervenor (Attorney Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the intervenor)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Na11409, 11577 Decided October 9, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a civil trial, the facts acknowledged in a civil case already established shall be valuable evidence, unless there are special circumstances, even though they are detained in facts recognized in a judgment on other civil cases, etc., and thus, it shall not be rejected without any reasonable reasoning. In particular, the facts that the two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties and form the basis of the dispute are the same, but it is more so in cases where a new claim can be made as a result of a conflict with the res judicata (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da52768 delivered on October 12, 1995; 2008Da48964, 48971 delivered on March 26, 2009, etc.).

Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Intervenor: (a) purchased the previous land and nine buildings indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “previous buildings”) around 2000; (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Intervenor on July 22, 200 or August 18, 200; (c) destroyed most of the roof and walls of the previous buildings; (d) completed three buildings indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 of the lower judgment on August 2, 200 and completed the new auction procedure (hereinafter “on-site building”); and (e) completed the new auction procedure on August 25, 200, the Intervenor divided the previous land and the previous building No. 8 and the previous building No. 9 on August 20, 200 into the new auction procedure; and (e) changed the ownership of each of the previous buildings to the remaining land and the new building No. 2150, Oct. 25, 2000.

However, the judgment of the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 3 (Judgments), which was not adopted or rejected by the court below, defendant 1 sought registration of transfer of 1/2 shares of each of the land and the previous buildings of this case based on the agreement with the plaintiff, but lost the defendant 1 in the first and the second instances. The defendant 1's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15116 Decided July 28, 2005 and the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the above judgment recognizes that the previous building only changes the structure to the extent that it can be recognized as identical to the existing building. Thus, the facts recognized in the above final judgment are significant evidence in this case unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable reasons.

However, in light of the records, even after examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, it can be found that the intervenor constructed a considerable scale of construction works and existing buildings in accordance with the appraisal results of the non-party appraiser's appraisal of the construction cost in 1977 and the airline margin and drawing in 2006, and there is a little difference between the previous building and the structure and the size of the previous building. Furthermore, it is difficult to clearly recognize that the intervenor constructed a existing building in a state where the previous building was completely demolished and demolished, and that it cannot be recognized as identical to the previous building and the social norms. Even based on the remaining evidence adopted by the court below, it cannot be deemed that there is sufficient evidence by the defendant as to the above or other special circumstances that should be rejected, and on the other hand, the change of the number can coincide with the current state through the registration of the merger or extension of the building under the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the facts recognized in the final judgment of the relevant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)