[1] In a case where the legal relationship in which the res judicata effect of the previous suit is in effect becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit, whether res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit affects the subsequent suit (affirmative)

[2] The objective scope of res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment

[3] The probative value of a final judgment on a civil and criminal case, and whether the specific reasons should be explained in a case where the final judgment is rejected (negative)

[1] In a case where, even if the subject matter of a prior suit and the subsequent suit are not identical, the legal relationship in which the res judicata effect of the prior suit is in effect becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the court of the subsequent suit cannot render a judgment inconsistent with the judgment rendered before the subsequent suit, for which the res judicata effect

[2] The res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit itself, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations as a premise stated in the grounds of the judgment.

[3] The facts acknowledged in a final judgment on a civil case, such as other civil and criminal cases related thereto, shall constitute a flexible evidence, except in extenuating circumstances. However, in a case where it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a final judgment on a relevant civil and criminal case in light of the contents of other evidence submitted in the civil and criminal trial, it may be rejected. In such a case, the specific reasons for rejection shall not be explained daily.

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da34183 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 655), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4684 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 657), Supreme Court Decision 9Da25785 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong200Sang, 174) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da31406 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 197Sang, 199Da9806 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1765), Supreme Court Decision 9Da31979 delivered on December 13, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1765), Supreme Court Decision 200Da319394 delivered on October 13, 1994)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Defendant 1 and eight others (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na27819 delivered on August 17, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (Appointed Party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Where the subject matter of a prior suit and the subsequent suit are not identical, if the legal relationship in the previous suit becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit shall be limited to the subsequent suit, and the court of the subsequent suit shall not make any judgment inconsistent with the judgment in the previous suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da34183, Dec. 27, 1994; 94Da4684, Dec. 27, 1994; 99Da25785, Dec. 10, 1999; 9Da25785, Dec. 10, 1999; i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of the legal relationship alleged as a subject matter of a lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of such legal relationship as stated in the reasons for the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da34196, Nov. 15, 1996>

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding as to the legal relations which are the subject matter of each final and conclusive judgment of each previous suit and the conclusion of the judgment on its existence and existence. The subject matter of each previous suit of this case is different from each other's right to claim ownership transfer registration based on an agreement on December 29, 1967, and the conclusion of the judgment on the subject matter of the previous suit of this case is different from each other's subject matter of the previous suit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's lawsuit of this case's case's judgment against the defendant (the appointed party) and its designated party's hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a civil trial, the facts recognized in the final judgment of other civil and criminal cases, etc. related thereto, unless there are extenuating circumstances, shall constitute a flexible evidence. However, in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial in question, where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the final judgment of the relevant civil and criminal cases as it is, it may be rejected, and in such a case, it is not necessary to explain the specific reasons for the rejection thereof on a daily basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da51372, Mar. 12, 1993; 95Da49370, Mar. 14, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning of the court below cited by the court below, unlike the facts found in the judgment (Evidence No. 1-3 and Evidence No. 2 of No. 1-6) that six (6) persons, including the non-party, etc., on the land prior to the division and substitution of the land of this case, are equal to 1/6 of the share in the previous civil case (Evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2 of No. 1-6), it is recognized that the non-party, etc., including the non-party, etc., who is the title holder of the registration, own the land corresponding to the portion of each of the above six (6) and it is nothing more than a trust of the non-party, etc. to six (6). Accordingly, the rejection of the previous civil final judgment contrary to this legal principle is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. This part of the ground

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)