(a) Whether the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership of the previous land before a replotting disposition and for verification of ownership of the relevant co-ownership shares in the proportion equivalent to the previous land among the substituted land after a replotting disposition are identical;

B. Whether the judgment on the existence of ownership in a prior suit is binding where a lawsuit is instituted as the cause of a claim based on ownership again after the judgment on the confirmation of ownership becomes final and conclusive

A. Where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced and the ownership and other legal relationship with the previous land exist with respect to the previous land shall be transferred to the land as they are, maintaining its identity. Therefore, where the land substitution of a parcel has been legally designated for several lots of land, the ownership of the previous lot of land shall be performed to the one parcel, and unless there are special circumstances, the previous owners shall acquire co-ownership shares in the land according to the corresponding ratio to the previous land. Thus, the lawsuit of confirming ownership of the previous land prior to the land substitution disposition and the lawsuit of confirming ownership of the corresponding co-ownership shares in

B. In a case where a legal relationship in which res judicata effect of a final and conclusive prior suit is in effect becomes an issue of the prior suit even if the subject matter of the prior suit is not the subject matter of the subsequent suit, the judgment of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit is the prior question of the subsequent suit and the res judicata effect becomes effective. Therefore, in a case where a lawsuit is instituted against the same defendant as the cause of a claim based on ownership after the judgment on the claim for ownership confirmation becomes final and conclusive, the judgment on the existence of ownership in the final and conclusive judgment of the previous suit cannot be binding on the parties

(b) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3855 Decided September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2590) (Gong1991, 2590). Supreme Court Decision 93Da34183 Decided December 27, 1994 (Dong)

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Plaintiffs 1 and 3 others, the New General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-chul

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na12294 delivered on December 8, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio.

(1) According to the records, the deceased non-party 1, who is the deceased's decedent, filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Civil & Security District Court 73rd 8131, seeking confirmation of ownership of the previous land prior to the disposition of replotting, but the plaintiff's failure judgment was sentenced to the dismissal of the claim on May 23, 1974, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 19 of the same year.

(2) Meanwhile, the claim of this case was filed by Nonparty 1, who died and succeeded to the previous land prior to the instant land substitution disposition, and thereafter, it became a joint land substitution disposition with the land of this case where 222 parcels, including the previous land prior to the instant land substitution disposition, were owned by the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Plaintiffs seek against the Defendant the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the ownership ownership to recover the real name.

(3) Where a replotting disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the replotting plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day after the day when the replotting disposition is publicly announced, and the ownership and other legal relationship existing in the previous land shall be transferred to the substitute land while maintaining its identity. Therefore, where the land substitution of a parcel has been legally designated for several lots of land, the ownership of the previous lot of land shall be deemed to acquire co-ownership shares for the substitute land according to the corresponding ratio to the previous land unless there are special circumstances, as a result, the ownership of the previous lot of land has been performed in one lot of land (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu33855 delivered on September 24, 191). Thus, the previous land ownership verification lawsuit for the previous lot of land and the ownership verification lawsuit for the corresponding co-ownership shares for the new land of the previous lot of land after the replotting disposition are the same subject matter of lawsuit. Furthermore, if the legal relationship of the previous lawsuit which has res judicata effect becomes final and conclusive becomes the subject matter of the subsequent lawsuit, the final judgment of the previous lawsuit becomes final and conclusive.

(4) As to this case, unless special circumstances exist such as that the above non-party 1 or the plaintiffs newly acquired ownership of the previous land prior to the disposition of land substitution or the pertinent part of the land of this case after the date of closing argument in the final judgment in the previous lawsuit, the judgment of the above final judgment as to whether the above non-party 1 had ownership of the previous land prior to the disposition of land substitution or the pertinent part of the land of this case shall have res judicata in the lawsuit of this case as a preliminary question about the existence of the plaintiffs' right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true name of this case.

Therefore, although the plaintiffs' claims in this case should be dismissed without the necessity of judgment on the merits because they conflict with the res judicata of the above final judgment, the court below did not determine whether they conflict with the res judicata and judged the propriety of the claims. However, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in this case on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims in this case are groundless, is justified in its conclusion (the grounds of appeal in this case are all pertaining to the merits of the claim in this case, and therefore the party members do not feel the necessity of judgment on them).

(4) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)