(a) Whether the person who acquired the relevant real estate at issue after the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court as of the claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage is a successor after the closing of argument that affects the final judgment

B. Whether res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit affects the subsequent suit in a case where the legal relationship in the previous suit becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit even though the subject matter of a lawsuit is not identical.

A. A successful bidder or a person who acquired the ownership of the real estate after the date of the closure of fact-finding proceedings in a claim for cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring real estate shall be deemed a successor after the closing of argument that has the effect of the final judgment under Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. If the legal relationship of the previous and the subsequent suit are the preemptive and conclusive legal relationship of the previous suit even though the subject matter of the lawsuit is not identical, the court of the subsequent suit cannot make a decision inconsistent with the judgment made before and after the previous suit, because the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit is limited to the subsequent suit in terms of the one-time resolution of the

A. Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 74Da1046 delivered on December 10, 1974 (Gong1975,8236). Supreme Court Decision 63Da295 delivered on October 22, 1963 (No. 11B civils 192), Supreme Court Decision 67Da1179 delivered on August 29, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 94Da4684 delivered on December 27, 1994

Attorney Go Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Maximum-ray and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na25122 delivered on June 1, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts duly established by the court below in this case are as follows. The registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed in the name of the non-party corporation 1, 1983, which was owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased the above non-party corporation's establishment of a mortgage under the name of the non-party 1, etc. 86Gahap2013, which was established by the non-party 1, etc. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above non-party corporation for the execution of the procedure of cancellation registration on the ground that the registration of establishment of a mortgage was null and void, but the plaintiff's appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 87Na76, May 13, 1987: the date of closing the argument: April 15, 1987) and the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1415, Sept. 22, 1987). After which the judgment became final and conclusive, the plaintiff acquired the above non-party 1's establishment of a mortgage under the name of the non-party 1, etc. 4, and completed the auction procedure.

2. As above, in the event that Defendant Choi Jong- Line acquired the ownership of the instant real estate after April 15, 1987, which was the date of the closing of fact-finding proceedings, and acquired it by auction and subsequently acquired it, as seen in the above recognition, the Defendants shall be deemed a successor after the closing of argument that has the effect of the said final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da746, Dec. 9, 1975).

In addition, if the subject matter of a prior suit and the subsequent suit are not identical, and if the subject matter of a prior suit are the prior legal relationship of a prior suit, the res judicata of the prior suit shall not be judged inconsistent with the prior suit in terms of the one-time resolution of the dispute, and the court of the subsequent suit shall not make a decision contrary to the prior suit in terms of the res judicata of the prior suit. In this case, the judgment on the invalidation of the establishment registration of a prior suit, which is the content of the prior suit, shall be the premise of determining the invalidity of the registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case. Therefore, in relation with the Defendants, who are successors after the closing of argument, the court shall be bound by the res judicata of the judgment of the prior

The judgment below to the above purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata or in the omission of judgment.

We cannot accept the judgment of the court below on the premise that the subject matter of a lawsuit is identical only if the subject matter of a lawsuit is identical, or that the subject matter of a prior suit does not constitute a prior question in this case.

The precedents of party members pointing out in the theory of a lawsuit are not consistent with this case, and the plaintiff's disadvantage by filing a lawsuit for retrial after the lapse of the exclusion period cannot serve as a reasonable ground for limiting the scope of res judicata effect of the decision subject to a retrial. Therefore, we

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)