A. Whether res judicata or executory power of the judgment on a person who acquired possession of a building from the defendant after the closing of argument in a building name lawsuit based on a claim for claim based on a claim for claim based on a claim for claim

B. Whether a person, who acquired the right of rent and concluded the sublease contract again, has won a favorable judgment in a lawsuit claiming the name of the store against the possessor of the store in subrogation of the transferor, but if the person transfers the store after the closing of argument in the lawsuit, has the benefit in the lawsuit seeking the name of the transferee of the store (affirmative)

A. If a claim, which is a subject matter of a lawsuit, has a detailed effect such as a real right claim, etc., the name of the building has res judicata effect or executory power of the judgment on the person who acquired possession of the building from the defendant of the judgment after the closure of pleadings, and the claim is limited to a claim which is not only the personal effect of the judgment, if the claim is not effective against the person who acquired the possession of the building

B. The plaintiff transferred the right of rent from Eul to Eul and entered into a sublease contract with Eul again. In order to preserve the right of rent from Eul, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the right of rent from Byung by subrogation of the store in order to preserve the right of rent from Eul, but Byung received a favorable judgment, but Byung transferred the above right to the defendant in accordance with the mind of the court below after the closing of the case, and thus, in the case where the defendant occupies it, the plaintiff's claim for the above lawsuit is a claim for claim against the defendant, and it does not affect the res judicata effect and executory power of the judgment against the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff who was unable to execute the right of rent from Eul only by the winning judgment is a benefit in the lawsuit against the defendant again.

(a)Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 213(b) of the Civil Code, Article 226 of the Civil Code / [Institution of Lawsuit]

Supreme Court Decision 4294No805 delivered on February 8, 1962 (No. 100~No. 95) 69Da80 Delivered on October 23, 1969 (No. 17 ③No. 215)

[Defendant-Appellee] Cho Jae-sung et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Han Jong-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na9642 delivered on September 19, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Generally, res judicata or executory power of the judgment is identical to a third party who has succeeded to the status of legal relationship, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit from the parties after the closing of argument, but in relation to the person who has acquired possession of the building from the defendant after the closing of argument in the lawsuit, if the claim, which is the subject matter of a lawsuit, has a detailed effect such as a real right claim, then it shall not extend only to the claim which is not only a personal effect, even if it is known.

Therefore, as determined by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff transferred the right to rent the store of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and entered into a sub-lease contract with the above non-party company, and subsequently won the case by filing a lawsuit against the non-party 1, who occupies the store. However, according to the evidence No. 6 (Judgment) of the court below, the plaintiff occupied the defendant by transferring the store to the defendant in accordance with the decision of the court below after the closing of argument of the case, and according to the above evidence No. 6 (Judgment), the plaintiff's claim filed in the lawsuit of this case was a claim against the above non-party 1, the possessor, in subrogation of the above two parties, for the purpose of preserving the right to rent the previous claim that he acquired from the above two parties, and if so, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim is a claim in claim as seen earlier. Thus, with respect to the defendant who succeeded to the possession of the store of

In the end, the plaintiff who became unable to execute the order of surrender against the defendant only by the winning judgment, has a benefit in the lawsuit against the defendant to seek again the order of surrender of the store of this case.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is insufficient, the conclusion that the plaintiff's interest in the protection of rights exists in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, so there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of res judicata effect affecting the conclusion of the judgment and the interest in

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized, based on the evidence, that the non-party 1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to directly express his intention when the contract period for his pre-contract expires. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as pointed out therein.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)