Res judicata of a litigation seeking cancellation registration and successor to the principle of closing argument.

In a lawsuit claiming cancellation of ownership transfer registration, the plaintiffs asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage on the part of the defendant Gap, which was made by the plaintiffs, was made by forged tax amount, and if the establishment registration of a mortgage on the part of the defendant Gap was merely a special representative appointment procedure by linking the legal representative of the minor with engaging in an act in conflict of interest, and it is evident by the above assertion itself in the subsequent lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant is identical to the subject matter of lawsuit, and it extends to the instant lawsuit between the remaining defendants, who were successors after the completion of pleadings by the plaintiffs, the defendant Gap, and the defendant Gap.

Articles 202 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Domine et al.

Japanese Bank, Inc. and 4 others

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, the defendant Japan Bank, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 2.

Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are the facts of the cause of the instant claim.

The real estate stated in the purport of this claim (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate") is jointly owned by the plaintiffs on March 11, 1961 who were donated from the above non-party 1 to the Busan District Court on the 15th day of the same month and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 1961, and the deceased non-party 1, who is the person with parental authority, before the plaintiffs become majority, requests the court to appoint a person with parental authority, but the legal representative of the plaintiffs on October 10, 1968 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 3rd day of the above real estate under the name of the above non-party 1, which is the legal representative of the plaintiffs, 6,00,000 won, the debtor's deceased mortgage transfer registration under the name of the above non-party 2, which was executed on the 3rd day of the above mortgage, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the 15th day of the above auction procedure, and the defendant received the above claim for the registration of ownership transfer as the non-party 1, 3051.

According to the reasoning of the above evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (each copy of the register of the above defendant), No. 1 to 1-2 (each of the above defendant's name), and No. 3 (Order) of the same evidence No. 1, No. 1-2 (each of the above defendant's name), the plaintiffs were co-ownership of this real estate against the defendant Il Il Bank Co., Ltd., which was 74 Gahap112 in 1974, and the Busan District Court Decision No. 1053 delivered on March 24, 1973 and was made on July 15, 1972 on the ground of the decision to permit the successful bid, and the above defendant's ownership transfer registration (the transfer registration of the above defendant's name as stated in this case) was revoked on the ground of the above defendant's title No. 1 to 3 (each of the above defendant's name), and the defendant's name of Busan Branch Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was declared to be revoked 7.

According to the above facts in Seoul High Court 75Na473 case, the previous suit and the subsequent suit are the independent military attack method supporting the invalidation of the cause of the claim, which is the cause of the claim for cancellation registration, as alleged in the following, that the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, etc. in the name of the defendant Japan Bank was completed by the documents forged, and that the establishment of a new mortgage, etc. in this case was conducted by the legal representatives of the minors at this time. In addition, the above assertion in the subsequent suit is obvious by the plaintiffs' own assertion that it was the cause of the claim for cancellation registration before the closing of argument in the previous suit. Thus, the res judicata effect of the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the previous suit and the subsequent suit between the plaintiffs and the above defendants, the same subject matter of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs, the above defendants, and their successors after the closing of argument in the above case shall be deemed to be inconsistent with the judgment of the previous suit and the judgment of the previous suit in this case shall not conflict with the judgment of the previous suit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims for objection against the defendants are without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)