To the extent of the person whose res judicata effect of the cancellation judgment on registration of initial ownership

After the conclusion of the final and conclusive judgment ordering the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation due to the invalidation of cause, the title holder who has completed registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of ownership preservation falls under the successor who has res judicata effect of the said final and conclusive judgment, regardless of whether it was before

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

63Ma14 delivered on September 27, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 7979 delivered on September 27, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 12Na169 delivered on September 11, 196, and Article 204 ②9 of the Civil Procedure Act delivered on September

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gahap239 decided May 1, 201

The appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall revoke the original judgment.

Defendant 1: (a) the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made on May 12, 1969 on the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 1 on May 15, 1969 by the Seoul Civil District Court, Leecheon District Court, Leecheon District Court, Lee 2216, received on May 15, 1969; (b) the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made on May 10, 1968 by the Plaintiff, etc. on the above real estate as No. 2174, received on May 10, 1968; and (c) the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made on March 18, 1969 on the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 2, 1133, received on March 13, 1969 on March 13, 1969; and (d) each procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on May 2174, 1968.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc. in the first and second trials.

After each registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of Defendant 2 under the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Residential District Court No. 2174 on May 10, 1968 with respect to the forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 1,2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “the forest land”) as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2216 of the above registration office on May 15, 1969, and Defendant 1 on May 12, 1969 on the ground of sale as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1133 of the above registration office on March 18, 1969, with respect to the forest land listed in the second list No. 1133 of the above registration office on March 13, 1969 on the ground of sale as of March 13, 1969, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff et al.'s legal representative filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party, although the non-party was originally registered to preserve ownership in the name of the non-party; the non-party's non-party was registered to preserve ownership in the name of the non-party; the non-party's legal representative purchased the non-party's 66.23 shares of the forest in the attached Table 1 from the same clan on March 23, 1966 under the name of the non-party's family; thus, the non-party's claim for ownership transfer registration is accepted; accordingly, the non-party's registration of ownership transfer should be revoked in the name of the non-party's own name; the non-party's registration of ownership transfer should be revoked in the name of the non-party's own forest in the attached Table 2, 3, and 15,810 shares among the forest in the attached Table 1 list; the plaintiff 1 purchased the ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party's own name and each of the non-party.

As alleged by the plaintiff et al., each registration of preservation of ownership in the non-party's name on this case, each registration of preservation of ownership in the non-party's name, each registration of preservation of ownership in the non-party's name, and each registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the plaintiff et al. was cancelled without any reason, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each registration of ownership preservation has been made in the name of the non-party 1 through 6, Eul No. 1 (application for change of indication of land, etc.) and No. 2 (application for cancellation of registration of ownership by judgment) of the same No. 3-1, 2, and 3 (Dismissal) of the non-party No. 3 (application for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation by judgment) and all purport of the arguments were reviewed. The non-party 2's judgment of cancellation of registration of ownership registration in the non-party 1's name was rendered in the non-party 1's name after the judgment was rendered in the non-party 1's name and the non-party 2.

Therefore, since the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff et al.'s main forest land and each of the above registration of ownership preservation under defendant 2 were lawful, the plaintiff et al.'s assertion that all of them were done without any cause is dismissed.

The next legal representative of the plaintiff et al., even if the plaintiff et al. won each lawsuit against the non-party for cancellation registration of ownership preservation on the part of the forest land owned by the non-party against the non-party and his objection became final and conclusive, it is unfair that the non-party clan or the plaintiff et al. who received the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party is treated as the non-party's successor and received the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party's successor and cancelled each registration of ownership transfer on the part of the non-party's clan or the plaintiff et al., because it is unfair for the plaintiff et al. to accept the registration of ownership transfer by treating the non-party's successor as the non-party's successor. Therefore, the plaintiff et al. asserted that the above registration of ownership preservation was null and void, as seen above, since the title holder who received the registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of ownership preservation after the final and conclusive judgment ordering cancellation of ownership preservation due to the invalidity of cause based on the ownership registration becomes a successor to the judgment.

Therefore, each registration of preservation of ownership of the forest in the name of the defendant, etc. and each claim filed by the plaintiff, etc. on the premise that each registration of preservation of ownership and each transfer of ownership is null and void shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment with the same conclusion is justified, and each appeal filed by the plaintiff, etc. is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff, etc. who has lost.

[Attachment List]

Judges Boh-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)