A. Whether an intangible document forged constitutes a forged or altered document under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

(b) Whether a party for whom a judgment to cancel registration of transfer of ownership has become final and conclusive may seek implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on ownership to recover the true title of registration;

(a) In the case of so-called intangibles of private documents which do not constitute criminal offences, such private documents do not constitute the document forged or altered at the time of forgery or alteration of the document admitted as evidence for the judgments in accordance with Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, and even if the judgment accepting the cancellation of registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer of real estate is null and void, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment is limited to the existence of the right to claim for cancellation registration, which is the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of the right to claim for cancellation registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer of real estate was already registered on the basis of the ownership itself, or the real owner who acquired ownership pursuant to the law can seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the present registered titleholder on the basis

(a) Article 422(1)6(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 202 of the same Act; Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

A. Supreme Court Decision 73Da2008 delivered on June 25, 1974 (Gong1974, 7958). Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu12398 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 189) Decided December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 578) (Gong1998 delivered on December 21, 1990)

Plaintiff

Attorney Yang Sung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na442, 459 (Consolidated), 466 (Counterclaim) Decided May 12, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Plaintiff for retrial).

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant hereinafter) and his legal representative are examined together (the grounds of appeal for additional appellate brief or the grounds of appeal filed at the expiration of the submission period are considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplement).

1. According to the records, it is evident that the appellate brief by the defendant's attorney was received by the worker on duty of the party members on July 22, 1994, which served as the 20th day from July 22, 1994 when the notice of receipt of the appellate brief was served on the defendant, and was transferred to the party members on the next day, and it was submitted within the submission period. In addition, although the contents of the appellate brief are somewhat small, it cannot be said that there was an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing in the judgment below. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellate brief by the defendant's attorney was submitted after the expiration of the submission period, or that there was no legitimate entry of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's appellate brief in the defendant's appellate brief.

2. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the part on which the non-party 1's false statement as grounds for retrial among the request for retrial of this case is deemed to conflict with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment on the action for retrial filed in Seoul High Court case No. 90 Jaena35, 42 and 59 was previously rendered by the defendant, but there is no lack in its reasoning, but it is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment on the action for retrial, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground

3. In the case of so-called intangible punishment of private documents which do not constitute a criminal offense, the private document does not constitute a forged or altered document when the document used as evidence for the judgment under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act was forged or altered (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da2008 delivered on June 25, 1974). In this regard, the court below rejected this part of the defendant's assertion on the grounds that even if the judgment of conviction against the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 is based on the conviction of the crime of attempted fraud against the plaintiff and the above non-party 1, the evidence No. 2 (sales Contract) was prepared in a false manner, and there is no judgment as to the forgery or forgery, and therefore, it is just to reject this part of the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the above judgment cannot be viewed as a final conviction judgment as a final conviction judgment as to the above Article. There is no error in the law

4. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that found the facts in the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be revoked or modified in the subsequent appeal procedure, and that the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be seen as being revoked or modified by the final judgment of the defendant in the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership between the defendant and the non-party 2 cannot be seen as being revoked or modified by the final judgment of the defendant in the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership between the defendant and the non-party 2 is just and there is no violation

5. The argument argues that even though the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled by the judgment subject to a retrial, which accepted a claim for the performance of the procedure for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant against the above non-party 2 on behalf of the above non-party 2, as long as the land in this case was confirmed as owned by the defendant due to the confirmation of ownership transfer against the above non-party 2 by filing a lawsuit against the above non-party 2, it is unreasonable that the defendant, who is the true owner, has no way to recover the registration name, so the request for a retrial in this case

However, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations on the premise thereof. Thus, even if the judgment which cited the cancellation of registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer on real estate becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void, the res judicata effect of such final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of the right to claim for cancellation registration which was the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of ownership on the basis that the ownership on the basis of the basic real estate was already registered or the real owner who acquired ownership pursuant to the law can seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer which was based on the restoration of the real name of registration against the present registered titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu2026, Dec. 21, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu268, Dec. 21, 1990).

6. 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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)