beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant's defense prior to the merits of the defendant's preliminary claim is added to Paragraph 2, and the statement of Evidence Nos. 25 through 32 (including the number of pages) is added to insufficient evidence, and therefore, it is cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that the ancillary claim that the Defendant’s share in the instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiff and the Claimant is unlawful, since there is no benefit in confirmation.
Therefore, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and the selected person completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the real estate of this case on February 29, 1984. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff and the selected person completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the 1/2 shares of this case on February 29, 1984, the defendant raised a lawsuit against the plaintiff, the 1/29 share of each of the above 1/2 shares, and the plaintiff and the selected person won the judgment. The plaintiff and the appointed person filed an appeal and the appeal against the above judgment, but all of the appeals and appeals were dismissed. The above judgment was recognized as final and conclusive on July 12, 1990, but the res judicata effect of the final judgment only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as the subject matter of lawsuit, that is, the existence of legal relations, and thus, it does not affect the legitimate acquisition of ownership of real estate, and thus, the judgment which admitted the claim for registration of ownership cancellation, which is the basic subject matter of ownership.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1335, Oct. 13, 1981).