A. Where the subject matter of a lawsuit is not identical, but the subject matter of a lawsuit in the previous lawsuit is inconsistent with the legal relations established in the previous lawsuit, whether res judicata of the judgment in the previous lawsuit affects the subsequent lawsuit

B. Whether filing a claim for the cancellation of only the above provisional registration with the subsequent suit in which the judgment of the previous suit ordering the implementation of the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration became final and conclusive violates res judicata effect of the judgment of the previous suit because it constitutes “A”

A. Even if the subject matter of the previous and subsequent suit is not identical, if the subject matter of the subsequent suit is the subject matter of the previous suit and the subject matter of the previous suit contradictory to the legal relationship established in the previous suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit shall extend to the subsequent suit.

B. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment does not affect only the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit and does not affect the existence of legal relations, and thus res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit that ordered the execution of procedures for ownership transfer registration based on provisional registration does not extend to the existence of a claim for ownership transfer registration, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and the validity of provisional registration is only stated in the existence of a claim for ownership transfer registration and the reason for the judgment. Therefore, if a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration as mentioned above is filed in the subsequent suit, it constitutes a case where the right to claim ownership transfer registration established in the prior suit is denied and contradictory to the claim is considered as a subject matter of lawsuit in light of the principle of one water right, and thus, it goes against res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit. However, the claim for cancellation of the above provisional registration is merely the premise of the judgment in the prior suit and it does not conflict with the legal relations not yet become final and conclusive.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1958 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,722). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2462 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990,451) 89Da7443 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong190,1683)

Sung-Gyeong Housing Co., Ltd

Defendant

Defendant 1 and 1 other Defendant 1’s Intervenor Park Jong-ju, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor’s intervenor

Cheongju District Court Decision 93Na846 delivered on September 9, 1993

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

The judgment on the grounds of appeal shall be made ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found, based on the following evidence, that the defendant joining the defendant, on behalf of the defendant, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant on May 20, 1991, ordering the defendant to implement the provisional registration based on the above provisional registration on the premise that the above provisional registration on the ground that the provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground of the purchase and sale reservation is valid is valid, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for cancellation of the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration on the ground that it is null and void is inconsistent with the legal effect established by the above final judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's claim in this case is contrary to the opposing relation, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is no longer justified.

In this case, the defendant's intervenor's action on behalf of the defendant is the existence of the right of claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of pre-sale. The subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is the existence of the right of claim for cancellation of provisional registration, and the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case differs from that of the claim. Thus, even if the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous lawsuit is not the same, if the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous lawsuit is considered as the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit should be effective in the subsequent lawsuit. However, the res judicata effect of the final judgment does not affect the existence of the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case only because it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of the legal relation alleged in the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, and it is merely the existence of the claim for ownership transfer registration based on provisional registration, and it does not conflict with the principle of res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit, and thus, it does not affect the plaintiff's right of claim for ownership transfer registration in this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which ordered the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the above provisional registration became final and conclusive by the judgment of the previous suit ordering the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the above provisional registration, and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case is a conflict between the legal effect already established by the judgment of the previous suit and the opposing relation, and thus, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on res judicata, and it is clear that such illegality has influenced the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect without

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)