[1] The scope of res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment

[2] In a case where Gap et al. filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the State based on farmland distribution disposition against Gap et al., but the judgment of loss became final and conclusive, and Eul et al., et al. lost the right to share the distributed farmland due to a series of illegal acts performed by the State, and sought damages against the State, the case holding that the existence of the right to share the farmland distribution disposition or the right to share the distributed land of Gap et al, which is an issue in the lawsuit brought by Eul et al.

[1] Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is limited to the conclusion of a judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of a lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations as a premise.

[2] In a case where Gap et al. filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the State on the ground of farmland distribution disposition against Gap et al., but the judgment of loss was finalized, and Eul et al., et al. lost the right to distribute distributed farmland due to a series of illegal acts performed by the State, and sought damages against the State, the case holding that the legal relation under which res judicata effect of the above final judgment is limited to the existence of the right to claim ownership transfer registration against Gap et al., and that the existence of the right to claim ownership transfer registration against Eul et al., which is an issue in a lawsuit claiming damages against Eul et al., does not affect res

[1] Article 216 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 216 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da47361 Decided December 27, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 495) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da55698 Decided December 23, 2005 (Gong2006Sang, 169) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da36022 Decided March 12, 2009

Plaintiff 1 and 55 others (Attorneys Lee Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1’s successor Intervenor 1 and 7 others (Attorney Lee Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee Jae-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2036456 decided February 7, 2020

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, that the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment rendered between the deceased Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 2, the deceased Nonparty 3, the deceased Nonparty 4, the deceased Nonparty 5, and the deceased Nonparty 6 (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Defendant rendered a final and conclusive judgment rendered by the Seoul High Court 68Na1943 (hereinafter “instant civil final and conclusive judgment”) did not extend to the point that the Defendant’s disposition of farmland distribution against the deceased is null and void, and that the deceased would be able to obtain the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant allocated farmland by completing the repayment payment to the Defendant after the date of closing the argument in the final and conclusive judgment, but the Defendant’s tort caused damage to the loss of the right to share ownership

The civil final and conclusive judgment of this case rejected the deceased's claim for transfer registration of ownership against the defendant on the ground of farmland distribution disposition. Res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, but does not affect the existence of legal relations on the premise thereof (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002; 2008Da36022, Mar. 12, 2009, etc.). The legal relations that affect res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment are limited to the existence of the deceased's claim for transfer registration of ownership against the defendant, and the existence of the right to distribute farmland distribution disposition or distribution of the deceased's own land at issue in this case is merely a legal relationship that serves as the premise, and thus does not affect the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

Although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court below, the conclusion of the court below that deemed that the right to distribute the land of this case held by the deceased was lost due to the defendant's tort is justifiable. Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject matter of lawsuit and the res judicata, etc.,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiffs, who were the deceased or their inheritors, suffered damages from each of the instant allocated farmland due to a series of illegal acts after May 1953 by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the said damages due to the tort committed by the public officials under its jurisdiction in relation to the performance of their duties pursuant to the former part of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for damages by tort, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for damages by tort, or by failing to comply with

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)