[1] The scope of res judicata of a judgment in a lawsuit

[2] Whether res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment’s claim that a claim to accept the procedure as an interested party is unlawful in the procedure of recovery registration upon a party’s request may affect a claim to accept the procedure as an interested party in the procedure of recovery registration upon a court’s request (

[3] The time to determine the amount of secured debt (=the time of application for auction)

[4] Whether a person who completed the registration of completion of provisional disposition after completing the registration of completion of provisional disposition registration in the procedure of recovery registration of provisional disposition cancellation is obligated to accept the registration of completion (affirmative)

[1] The res judicata of a judgment in a lawsuit extends to the defects in the requirements of the lawsuit established in the judgment.

[2] The final and conclusive dismissal judgment is unlawful of a claim against the defendant, which the plaintiff sought a third party to implement the procedure of recovery registration of provisional disposition entry registration. The plaintiff's new claim is a claim for acceptance of the procedure as an interested party, and is subject to the procedure of recovery registration by the commission of the court, which is not the registration of recovery by the party's request, not the registration of recovery by the party's request, and thus, it does not affect the new claim of res judicata effect of the final and conclusive dismissal judgment by

[3] Where a mortgagee filed a request for auction on the ground of a default of the secured obligation, the amount of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security shall be determined at the time of the request for auction, and thereafter the right to collateral security shall be treated as an ordinary mortgage.

[4] If a person who has acquired a right on the register after a provisional disposition has been completed, is a third party interested in the registration of recovery of the cancelled entry registration, and if the person holding the right on the register obtains a favorable judgment in the lawsuit on the merits where the provisional disposition was made, and thereby becomes able to register the ownership transfer in the future of the person holding the right on the register after a provisional disposition has been completed, the person who acquired the right on the register shall be placed in the position to cancel the registration of ownership transfer in his name, so the person who acquired the right on the register after a provisional disposition has been completed shall be bound to accept the registration of recovery of the entry

[1] Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [3] Article 357(1) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 75 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da45015 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1946), Supreme Court Decision 96Da31406 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 14) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 87Da545 delivered on October 11, 198 (Gong198, 1400), Supreme Court Decision 89Da15601 delivered on November 28, 199 (Gong190, 146), Supreme Court Decision 92Da48567 delivered on March 12, 1993 (Gong193, 1967) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da196495 delivered on March 16, 199, Supreme Court Decision 9Da29497 delivered on March 96, 196

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Hun-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 95Da13951 Delivered on February 14, 1997

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na10569 delivered on May 28, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

The res judicata effect of a judgment in a lawsuit extends to the defects in the requirements of the lawsuit established in that judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da45015, Jun. 14, 1994; 96Da31406, Nov. 15, 1996).

Since each right to collateral security in the name of the non-party agricultural cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party cooperative") established with respect to the real estate of this case had already been terminated at around 1990, and even if the secured debt was fully extinguished, the auction court established on June 1993 knew that each of the above right to collateral security was extinguished only by successful bid, which was established in the compulsory auction procedure established on June 1993, the plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for recovery registration of the above right to collateral security in the name of the co-defendant 1 of this case until the original court prior to remand on the premise that each of the above right to collateral security was revoked by the successful bid, along with the registration of the above right to collateral security, the registration of the right to collateral security was revoked, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 of this case with respect to the above right to collateral security in the above compulsory auction procedure, which was rejected by the court below prior to remanding the plaintiff's judgment against the defendant 1 of this case. The plaintiff's claim for recovery registration of remand as to the above defendant 1 of this case was dismissed.

According to this, the above final and conclusive dismissal judgment is unlawful for the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 to accept the procedure for the recovery registration of the above provisional disposition against the defendant as an interested party. Since the plaintiff's claim for the acceptance of the registration of recovery changed in exchange after the remands the case subject to the procedure for recovery registration by the commission of the court, not the recovery registration by the party's request, but the procedure for recovery registration by the request of the court, which is not the recovery registration by the party's request, the above final and conclusive dismissal judgment differs from the object of each consent expression, and thus the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive dismissal judgment

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5

The court below held that the amount of the claim secured by the right to collateral security has been determined at the time of filing an application for auction on the ground of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

The cancellation registration of provisional disposition of this case, which was made by the commission of an auction court on the ground that it was lower than that of the above right to collateral security in the name of the non-party partnership and the plaintiff still holds the right as a provisional disposition holder, notwithstanding the above cancellation registration. Meanwhile, the defendant is a third party having interest in the registration of the cancellation of provisional disposition since the defendant acquired a right on the register after the above provisional disposition entry registration was completed. And if the plaintiff, who is a provisional disposition holder, becomes able to register the transfer of ownership in the future of the plaintiff by winning a judgment in the lawsuit on the merits where the provisional disposition was made, the defendant is placed in the position to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da44, Apr. 4, 1963) and the defendant is obligated under the substantive law to accept the registration of the restoration of provisional disposition entry registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3444, Apr. 4, 1963).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)