[1] In a case where the telephone for filing a lawsuit is revoked in a quasi-deliberation suit, the validity of the legal relationship arising from the telephone for filing a lawsuit (effective effect)

[2] In a case where the telephone for filing a lawsuit, which served as the basis for the registration of transfer of ownership, has lost its effect by a quasi-adjudication, whether the assertion that the registration is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship is in conflict with the res judicata effect

[1] In the case of the telephone damage, the lawsuit to be terminated is not pending, and it is only the settlement procedure, so there is no lawsuit to be reinstated even if the quasi-deliberation judgment revoking the telephone damage due to the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation becomes final and conclusive due to the grounds for retrial, and the settlement procedure is just the same as the legal relationship arising from the telephone damage was not established from the beginning.

[2] In a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer or the cancellation of ownership transfer registration that has been made on the basis of the filing and telephone invalidated by a quasi-adjudication final judgment, the defendant of the lawsuit can assert that the registration of ownership transfer is a valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship, and such assertion cannot be permitted as it conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

[1] Articles 206 and 431 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 202, 206, and 431 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Da2278 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 207) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da17680 delivered on December 9, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 4466)

Private Teaching Institutes (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Kim Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 94Na1279 delivered on February 9, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The telephone damage in a lawsuit is not a settlement procedure, but a settlement procedure has been terminated only because there is no lawsuit to be reinstated even if the quasi-deliberation judgment revoking the telephone damage caused by a lawsuit for retrial has become final and conclusive due to the ground for retrial, and the settlement procedure is just the same as the beginning where there was no legal relationship arising from the telephone damage in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 62Da490, Oct. 18, 1962; 78Da2278, Dec. 22, 1981). In a lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer or the procedure for registration of ownership transfer that has been completed due to the telephone loss caused by the quasi-adjudication, which is invalidated by the final and conclusive judgment, the defendant can be viewed as a valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship, and such assertion cannot be allowed as it goes against the res judicata effect of a quasi-adjudication final and conclusive judgment.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the plaintiff as the respondent and the non-party 1 (joint defendant in the court of first instance) to be the applicant for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case with the above non-party 1 to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of trust on the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the above non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case under his name. The defendant won the real estate of this case at a voluntary auction procedure based on the right to collateral security established in the above real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name. The plaintiff filed a quasi-deliberation claim seeking the cancellation of the above protocol of appeal on the ground that the non-party 2's attorney's right to representation at the above time of appeal did not satisfy the legal relationship of the above non-party 1, and the registration of ownership transfer in the above non-party 1's name was revoked in accordance with the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the plaintiff's right of this case was invalidated.

In addition, the ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case, which was made in the name of the non-party 1 without permission from the competent authority, is null and void. At the time of the filing of the lawsuit, the above ○○○ at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, all of the arguments that the above ○○ does not have a legal status as an independent temple, is a new assertion that does not have a legal status as an independent temple until the original judgment was asserted.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)