Subjective scope of res judicata of the judgment that cited a claim for the performance of registration procedures for cancellation of real estate

If a judgment to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership without any cause becomes final and conclusive, a person who received the registration of transfer of ownership or creation of a security right from the defendant in turn after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a successor to the so-called “after the closing of argument” as referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article

Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Of the complete species of Jeonju

Mal Tae-ray et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 63Ra9 delivered on April 30, 1963

The order of the court below is reversed.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

The disposition of court clerk of the Seoul District Court shall be revoked.

The grounds for re-appeal by the agent of the applicant are as follows.

In this case, the respondent is all registered titleholders who interfere with the exercise of the applicant's ownership, and the respondent shall be deemed to be the successor after the closing of argument under Article 204 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

In a lawsuit claiming the performance of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that the registration becomes the subject matter of the lawsuit, so the successor after the closing of argument shall not be deemed to have succeeded to the obligation not to interfere with the exercise of ownership.

In light of the above, in a case where the registration of ownership transfer has already been passed through without any cause from the title holder on the registry of real estate, if the title holder requests the cancellation of each existing registration against the title holder on the basis of the exclusion of interference with ownership, it would be nothing more than claiming the cancellation of each previous registration on the ground of the exclusion of interference with ownership. Therefore, in such a case where the judgment to cancel each registration on the ground that the registration is the registration of acquisition of ownership transferred without any cause becomes final and conclusive after the final pleadings of this final and conclusive judgment were concluded, those who received the registration of transfer of ownership or the registration of creation of security right from the defendants shall be deemed to be the successor after the conclusion of so-called argument under Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit shall be extended to those persons. Therefore, even if each registration of each title holder or the person who acquired the security right after the conclusion of arguments is different from the title holder, and thus, even if it belongs to the original nature that should be cancelled individually, each of such title holder shall not be deemed to bear the same obligation of ownership.

However, according to the facts established by the court below in this case, with respect to 1 to 10,230 of 54 copies in Black-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is the applicant's ownership against the non-applicant non-appellant, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for demanding the performance of the procedure for the cancellation registration of each ownership acquisition registration, which was passed through without any cause, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was finalized. The respondent in this case after the closure of the final trial at the court of fact-finding, is obvious that the respondent in this case had passed through the registration of the acquisition of each term ownership or the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate. Thus, the respondent in this case should be deemed to be the successor after the closure of the final judgment at the court of fact-finding, and therefore, it is necessary that the plaintiff in this case shall be deemed to be the successor after the closure

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the petitioner's objection under the theory that the respondent cannot be seen as a successor after the closing of argument in the above judgment. Thus, the court below clearly erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subjective scope of res judicata.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and this case is considered to be a case where the court below erred in the application of the law, and it is decided directly by the party members.

According to the facts established by the court below as seen above, according to the facts established by the court below as seen above, all the respondent of this case can be seen as the successor of the defendant after the closing of argument in a final and conclusive judgment, so the respondent of this case shall revoke the decision of the first instance court and the disposition of the court clerk of the Seoul District Court

It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak, Red Mag-Jak, Live-Jak, Live-P