The objective scope of judgment and res judicata of the reasons

The lawsuit of demanding cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is a prior suit, is to seek modification of entry in the register based on the real right to real estate and to reflect the actual relation in the registration. However, the determination of existence of ownership is equivalent to the judgment in the reasoning, so the existence of ownership does not affect res judicata.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1499 delivered on March 2, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1888 delivered on May 13, 1969, Article 202(12)8) and Article 202(12)8)8Da2437 delivered on May 13, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 481Da1727 delivered on September 28, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 71Da1729 delivered on September 28, 197, Supreme Court Decision 19Da19829 delivered on September 25, 197, and Article 202Da1430 delivered on October 10, 197, Article 202(1063Da10263 delivered on June 263, 192, Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 205325 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 529 of the Act on the Improvement of Farmland (3250Da5252699)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap30) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of the first instance

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

It is confirmed that the 1,142th of the Yok-gu, Jeonbuk-gu, Jeonbuk-gu, is owned by the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The court below held that the non-party 1 was the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1'6's non-party 1's.

In this case, the right to collateral security is null and void and the auction procedure executed by this enforcement is also null and void, so the defendant, who is the successful bidder of this land, cannot acquire the ownership even if the procedure for ownership transfer registration is completed on the ground of this.

However, as the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the execution of the procedure to cancel the registration of ownership transfer in the above defendant's name as to the land of this case and the judgment against the plaintiff was finalized, the plaintiff's claim for this case is obviously contrary to the principle of prohibition of re-litigation. However, according to the records, it is obvious that the above claim for cancellation is re-scheduled after the lawsuit for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case was concluded, and the above lawsuit for cancellation is seeking a change of the registration of ownership based on the real right to real estate, and it is intended to reflect the actual relation in the registration. However, the judgment on the existence of ownership is nothing more than the judgment on the existence of ownership, and the existence of ownership does not affect res judicata. In other words, the plaintiff's assertion is not contrary to the previous lawsuit, so it is not accepted.

Therefore, since the defendant denies the plaintiff's ownership as to the land of this case at present, the defendant has the interest in confirmation and confirms that the plaintiff has the ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is reasonable, and the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that shares the result is without merit. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges and soldiers (Presiding Judge)