The acquisition of ownership cannot be asserted by newly asserting the fact that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed before the closing of argument, which is the standard time of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of non-existence of ownership.

A. The standard time for res judicata is the closing time of pleadings by the appellate court which is the final fact-finding court.

B. Where a party loses the evidence of the fact that existed prior to the closing of argument in the pleading prior to the closing of argument, the party cannot re-convene the contents of the final judgment against which the fact or evidence has been lost as the reason therefor.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act

Lee Madon

Park Yong-Ha et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 59No1114 delivered on October 7, 1960, Seoul High Court Decision 2005Da1114 delivered on October 7, 200

The final judgment is the standard time of res judicata in light of Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act even in a case where the oral argument is clearly set at the closing price of the oral argument based on the data submitted until the closing of oral argument, and even in a case pending before the final appeal, it is impossible to present new facts or evidence. Therefore, the standard time of res judicata in the final appeal, which is a fact-finding court, shall be the closing date of oral argument, which is the final fact-finding court. Therefore, in a case where a party loses evidence before the closing of oral argument as of the date of oral argument, the existence of legal relationship shall be determined as of the date of conclusion of the oral argument, and it shall not be able to dispute the contents of the final judgment lost on the ground of such fact or evidence, which is prevented by res judicata, again, and as long as the ownership of the real estate is established in the ownership confirmation lawsuit, it shall not be permitted as long as it goes against the legal principles of the final judgment, which is an object of extinctive prescription, even if there is no new ownership in the previous suit.

Justices Lee B-ho (Presiding Justice)