[1] The probative value of a fact recognized in a civil judgment which became final and conclusive in a civil trial

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that found the facts established in the previous case and determined contrary to the facts established in the previous case solely on the ground that there is no new evidence or no relation with the issue

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da47292 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2527) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20748 delivered on July 4, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da36445 Delivered on June 12, 2008

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 2007Na22408, 22415 decided June 13, 2008

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In a civil trial, the facts acknowledged in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., even though they are not bound by the facts established in the judgment of other civil cases, shall be significant evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it is a view established by a party member that the facts cannot be rejected without any reasonable reason. In particular, the same is true in cases where two previous and previous civil cases are identical to the parties and form the basis of the dispute, but the same is true in cases where a new claim can be filed as a result that does not conflict with res judicata (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da20748, Jul. 4, 200; 2007Da36445, Jun. 12, 2008, etc.).

According to the records, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the co-defendant 2 seeking the registration of ownership transfer concerning the share of the above site out of the land in Busan District Court (hereinafter referred to as "previous case"), on the ground that the defendant and the co-defendant 2 did not obtain the registration of ownership transfer concerning the share of the above site among the land in this case owned by the defendant which was transferred by the non-party 2 to the court below on January 19, 200, but they did not obtain the registration of ownership transfer concerning the share of the above site from the defendant, and the defendant did not obtain the registration of ownership transfer equivalent to the share of each of the above site among the land in this case which was transferred by the non-party 2 to the court below, on the ground that the defendant and the co-defendant 2 did not obtain the registration of ownership transfer as to the above share of the land in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the above case"), and on the ground that the defendant did not obtain the certification of ownership transfer between the defendant and the defendant 20.

However, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the co-defendant 2 of the court below agreed on January 19, 200 to pay the above payment on behalf of the defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the court below to implement the registration of transfer of ownership as to the share in the site of each of the land in this case among the land in this case on the ground that the plaintiff had been transferred one half of the previous loan Nos. 101 and 701 from the previous co-defendant 2 of the court below among the loan in this case on the ground of the transfer of one-half of the previous one among the above 101 and 701, the court below held that the non-party 2 of the court below, who is the defendant's living together, subrogated on May 13, 1996 to pay 33,50,000 won for the debt to the Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company of the court below, and at the same time, the defendant was liable to perform the registration of transfer of ownership to the co-defendant 2 of this case on the same ground.

However, it is difficult to accept such fact-finding and judgment of the court below.

In fact-finding and decision-finding which are contrary to the previous case, the contents of Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5-1 and 2 cited by the court below are the facts that non-party 2 paid the principal and interest of the above debt by the co-defendant 2 of the court below, and the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court below agreed to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the land of this case at the same time as the payment of the above subrogated amount, and it is not a new one not dealt with in the previous case. In particular, the court below excluded the above facts as mentioned in the previous case from the previous case without any reason, and found facts different from the facts found in the previous case only with each of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that there is a circumstance to find facts different from the facts established in the previous case, and since the evidence presented by the court below is not a new evidence or has no relation with the above issue, they cannot be deemed to have any effect to reverse the facts established in the previous case, and the judgment of the court of the first instance does not change its validity or probat

Therefore, the court below's finding of facts and decision that are contrary to the facts established in the previous case is not proper or erroneous in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff among the main claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)