[1] In a case where the subject matter of a lawsuit does not fall under the objective scope in which res judicata has effect on the grounds of an identical or prior question or contradictory relation, whether res judicata has effect on the judgment in the previous suit brought by the successor to the dispute, etc. from the parties after the closing of argument in the previous suit (negative)

[2] In a case where Gap et al. filed a lawsuit against Eul seeking implementation of the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration of the building, etc. against Eul, and Byung who acquired ownership of the building, etc. from Eul et al. after the closing of argument in the above judgment filed a lawsuit against Eul et al. seeking delivery of the building and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the building, the case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that Byung was a successor after the closing of argument and thus it cannot acquire ownership of the building, etc. because

[1] Where a subject matter of a lawsuit does not fall under the objective scope in which res judicata has effect on the grounds of an identical or prior question or contradictory relation, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit shall not extend to the subsequent suit even if the person who succeeded to the dispute, etc. from the parties after the closing of argument

[2] In a case where Gap et al. filed a lawsuit against Eul seeking implementation of the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration of the building, etc. against Eul, and Byung who acquired ownership of the building, etc. from Eul et al. after the closing of argument in the above judgment filed a lawsuit against Eul et al. seeking delivery of the building and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the building, the case held that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the legal relationship alleged in the judgment in the previous lawsuit is the existence of the right to claim cancellation registration of the building, etc. and the existence of ownership of the building, etc. is a premise, and the judgment on the right to claim cancellation registration of the previous suit does not affect res judicata effect of the judgment on the previous suit, since it cannot be deemed that the judgment on the right to claim cancellation registration becomes a preliminary question of the claim, such as delivery of the building, or that there is conflict with the existence of the right to claim cancellation registration of the building, etc., which is the subject matter of the prior suit, since Byung purchased the building from Eul after the closing of argument.

[1] Articles 216 and 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 216 and 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361 Decided December 27, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 495), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58889 Decided December 23, 2010 (Gong2011Sang, 222)

EBD Co., Ltd. (LOS Law LLC, Attorneys Ansan-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Oyn, Attorneys Final Am-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Na6240 decided June 19, 2013

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

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

1. The lower court: (a) purchased the instant commercial building from D&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D&A”); (b) acquired the status of a buyer under the consent of D&A; and (c) thereafter, D&A purchased the instant commercial building in the name of Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”); and (d) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building and its site located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of each trust with respect to the instant building and its site; and (c) concluded the registration of ownership transfer on June 17, 2009, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against D&A on behalf of D&A, and obtained the registration of ownership transfer from the said court on June 17, 2009; and (d) concluded that the part of the instant building and its site, including the instant building and its ownership transfer registration, included in D&A’s ownership transfer registration, for the reason that D&A’s trust and the trust’s ownership registration procedure was voided.

In addition, the court below presumed that the objective res judicata has to be established because the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous suit and the subject matter of the subsequent suit against the successor are identical, contradictory, or preemptive relation, and that the plaintiff's subsequent suit seeking delivery of the building in this case and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent against the defendants, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case differs from the prior suit in this case, which is the subject matter of the right to claim cancellation registration, and thus the subject matter of the prior suit in this case differs from the subject matter of the prior suit in this case. Thus, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the prior suit in this case does not extend to the judgment in this case. Furthermore, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff's prior suit in this case, as the successor in this case, was subject to res judicata effect of the judgment in this case after the closing of argument, on the grounds that the plaintiff's right in the prior suit in this case, the subject matter of the prior suit in this case, which

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below as it is.

A. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, which are the premise in the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, even though the judgment accepting a claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the cause is null and void, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment affects only the existence of the right to claim for cancellation registration, which is the subject matter of lawsuit, and does not extend to the judgment on the reversion of real estate rights among the reasons of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1792, Aug. 19, 1986; 2010Da58899, Dec. 23, 2010). Moreover, even if the subject matter of lawsuit is identical with the subject matter of lawsuit in the prior suit, if the judgment does not conflict with the subject matter of lawsuit in the prior suit, the judgment does not conflict with the judgment is identical with the judgment or 2070.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the existence of the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, is different from the existence of the right to claim the cancellation of a building and the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, which are the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case. The legal relationship asserted as the subject matter of res judicata effect of the judgment in this case, i.e., the existence of the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of the commercial building in this case, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, is the existence of the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of the commercial building in this case, and the existence of the ownership of the commercial building in this case, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, is merely a legal relationship that serves as the premise, and does not affect res judicata effect of the judgment in this case, even if the plaintiff purchased the building in this case including the commercial building in this case, after the closing of argument in the judgment in this case.

The court below's decision that the objective res judicata should not be applied to the successor in order to refuse res judicata, and that res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit in this case cannot be deemed to extend to the case. On the contrary, the decision that held that the plaintiff's ownership of the previous suit in this case is a successor after the closing of argument in this case constitutes a contradiction in the reasoning. Unlike the possibility of granting the succeeding execution clause to the plaintiff, as long as the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was completed with respect to the building in this case because the defendants failed to execute the judgment in the previous suit in this case and the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the building in this case, the plaintiff is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate grounds. Thus, the plaintiff's ownership cannot be denied solely on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to res judicata effect. Accordingly, the court below should have deliberated and decided the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim in this case, which is premised on ownership in the previous suit

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff was a successor after the closing of argument and that ownership could not be acquired because the final judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reasoning and the validity of res judicata, etc.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)