A. The trial scope of res judicata

(b) The case holding that it does not conflict with res judicata of the previous judgment because it was not a ground arising before the conclusion of fact-finding pleadings

A. Where a final judgment has become final and conclusive, any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that could have occurred and submitted prior to the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court is interrupted by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, it is not permissible for the parties to make a new assertion contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment on such grounds, but it is allowed to make a claim contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment

B. When Gap filed a lawsuit against Eul for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, etc. as identical cause of claim to this case, but the judgment against Eul became final and conclusive as it was after having been sentenced to the judgment against him on the ground that the telephone phone, which caused the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Byung which was completed prior to the above registration, remains valid, the ground for cancellation of the above settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit, if Gap filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation on the above claim, and then filed the lawsuit in this case after revoking the above telephone damage, shall be deemed to have newly occurred after the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in the previous lawsuit, and thus Gap or his successor after

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 63Da359 delivered on September 12, 1963

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na5404 delivered on June 7, 1988

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Where a final and conclusive judgment has become final and conclusive, any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that occurred and could have been submitted prior to the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court is prohibited by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new assertion contrary to the contents of the final and conclusive judgment on such grounds. However, it is not permissible to make a new claim to oppose the contents of the final and conclusive judgment after the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court. (See Supreme Court Decision 63Da359 delivered on September 12, 1963) In this case, according to the facts acknowledged by the lower court, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on September 11, 1980 as the same ground as this case, which is the Seoul Civil & Security District Court 80Da5466 delivered on September 11, 1980, which caused the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, but it constitutes a limitation of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive after the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court.

Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)