[1] The objective scope of res judicata

[2] The case holding that in the land transfer lawsuit filed by Byung on behalf of Eul, who filed a lawsuit for the transfer registration of ownership on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period, but rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground of non-existence of the preserved claim to subrogate Eul, and Byung filed a final and conclusive judgment, Eul's assertion that the above rights had the above rights cannot be permitted as a defense against the res judicata

[3] Whether a ground for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be the ground for appeal (affirmative), and the meaning of "new ground that occurs after the conclusion of pleading" that prevents the effect of res judicata

[1] The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the res judicata has res judicata effect, and in a case where the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit in a prior suit, even though the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as that on the subject matter of a prior suit in a prior suit, it does not allow a subsequent suit

[2] The case holding that it is not permissible for Gap to assert the above right as a defense ground for res judicata in the land transfer lawsuit filed by Byung on behalf of Eul, who filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period, but rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground of the non-existence of the preserved claim to subrogate Eul, and after the judgment became final and conclusive, Byung filed a lawsuit for the

[3] The grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act can be referred to as the grounds for retrial. However, the grounds for retrial shall be limited to the case in question, and the grounds for retrial shall not be referred to as the grounds for appeal of the case in question on the ground that there are other cases related to the case in question. The res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment shall not be referred to as the grounds for appeal of the case in question where there are new grounds that occur after the closing of argument. However, the new grounds that occur after the closing of argument

[1] Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 202(1), 393, and 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da25785 delivered on December 10, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 174) Supreme Court Decision 94Da46114 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1728), Supreme Court Decision 98Da18155 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1591) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 88Da3116 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong198, 136), Supreme Court Decision 91Da24847, 24854 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3238)

A Institute of Public Interest in School (Law Office of Posi General Law Office, Attorneys Geum Tae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Young-hwan (Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 98Na11381 delivered on June 28, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration on October 10, 1978 on the part of the defendant's possession of the land in this case against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the land occupied by the defendant in this case"). The defendant filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration on the premise that the defendant purchased the land from the non-party public-private-private-private-public-public-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-public-private-law's right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground that the plaintiff did not sell the land occupied by the defendant in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below 96Da802, based on the fact-finding of the court below ( Daegu District Court 95Na7022), which did not have standing.

The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which res judicata has res judicata effect, and even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit, the subsequent suit does not allow the defendant to make a claim different from the judgment on the prior suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da46114, Mar. 24, 1995; 9Da25785, Dec. 10, 199; 98Da18155, Jun. 9, 200). However, as long as the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as that on the subject matter of a prior suit, it is obvious that the defendant's claim against the subject matter of a prior suit does not conflict with that on the premise that the defendant's claim against the subject matter of a prior suit cannot be asserted before the final judgment.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant asserted the right similar to superficies on the land occupied by the defendant in the above argument, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the scope of res judicata or by omitting judgment or incomplete hearing, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The grounds for a retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be referred to as the grounds for a retrial. However, the grounds for a retrial shall be limited to the case in question, and shall not be referred to as the grounds for a retrial under other cases related to the case in question on the ground that there exist grounds for a retrial. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment shall not be referred to as the grounds for a retrial. Although it shall be interrupted if there are new grounds that arise after the closing of argument (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da24847, 24854, Oct. 27, 1992). The new grounds arising after the closing of argument in this context refer to the facts itself, not the new

According to the records, the grounds for retrial asserted by the defendant as the grounds for appeal are proved to have been forged in the name of the Supreme Court Decision 96Da8802, which is a prior suit, and the lease contract in the name of the most rare, which was adopted as evidence by the original judgment, was proved to have been forged, and the testimony of the non-party was clarified as a false statement, and thus a final judgment of conviction was rendered. This is nothing more than a judgment in the prior suit, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, and it does not constitute a new ground that occurred after the closing of argument that prevents res judicata of the judgment in the prior suit. The grounds for

3. 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 Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)