beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the case against Defendant B’s Council shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Reasons
1. We examine ex officio Defendant B’s appeal against Defendant B’s appeal (hereinafter “Defendant clan”).
Where a third party completes the registration of ownership transfer by a final and conclusive judgment rendered in favor of a title trustee, etc., seeking the cancellation of another registration on the ground that the transfer of ownership in the name of the title trustee or any other third party is null and void on behalf of the title trustee or any other former owner is contrary to the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da26505, Jan. 27, 2006). However, in full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer of the remaining Defendants’ shares among each of the real estate in this case against the remaining Defendants (referring to the Defendants other than the Defendant clan; hereinafter the same shall apply) and received each final and conclusive judgment of winning (Seoul District Court Decision 2003Gahap9300, 204Gahap11447, etc.), and then recognized the completion of the registration of ownership transfer based on the final and conclusive judgment, but, in subrogation of the remaining Defendants of this case, sought claim for cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration.
In accordance with the above legal principles, the court below rejected the claim against the defendant of the plaintiff clan on the ground that it goes against the res judicata effect of each of the above final judgment. The part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata effect of the final judgment and creditor subrogation lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
2. We examine the remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal. A.
With respect to the claim of the non-committee agreement, the lower court held that the Plaintiff’s clan against the rest of the Defendants of this case.