Whether a purchaser may file a claim for cancellation in cases where a third party has filed a registration of transfer of ownership with a seller by a final and conclusive judgment among the real estate purchaser's failure to register the transfer

Where a third party, among the real estate buyers who did not register the ownership transfer, has registered the ownership transfer of the real estate with the final and conclusive judgment to the seller, the buyer cannot seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the third party in conflict with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment in lieu of the seller in order to preserve the seller's right to claim the ownership transfer registration, unless the final and conclusive judgment is null and void or cancelled by litigation

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da2229 Delivered on August 19, 1975

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant 1's legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1352,1414 delivered on June 25, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (the supplementary grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are limited to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal since they are subsequent to the deadline).

Where a purchaser of real estate has filed a lawsuit against the seller and completed the registration of ownership transfer by obtaining the final and conclusive judgment on the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, the purchaser cannot request the cancellation of the above registration in the name of a third party which conflict with the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment on behalf of the seller in order to preserve the seller's right to claim the registration of ownership transfer in lieu of the seller (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da2229 delivered on August 19, 1975). The judgment of the court of first instance held in the same position and held in the court of first instance that the registration of ownership transfer of the present land was made in the name of the non-party agricultural village office of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as an incorporated association), and the above final and conclusive judgment was just in accordance with the res judicata effect between the plaintiff's right to ownership transfer and the non-party incorporated association's registration of ownership transfer, and even if the above final and conclusive judgment was made by subrogation of the fact that the ownership of the above land was defective by service by publication or the cause of the above final and conclusive judgment, it is not justified.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)