A. Whether the res judicata effect of a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to an unauthorized representative has on the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the non-existence of a claim and a debt relationship

B. Whether res judicata effect of a lawsuit in respect of the existence of a claim or an obligation extends to a lawsuit as to the existence of a claim or an obligation for cancellation on the ground of a claim or an obligation relationship

A. The former and the latter are merely an attack and defense against the claim that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void due to the non-party's act of unauthorized representation in the former and the non-party's act in the latter and the non-party's assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of the claim is invalid due to the non-existence of a debt relationship arising from unauthorized representation in the latter and the latter are merely an attack and defense against the claim that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void.

B. Since the claim as to the existence of a claim and the claim for cancellation of registration based on the claim and the relation of the obligation are separate objects of lawsuit, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the existence of an obligation cannot affect a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration based on the existence of an obligation.

Articles 202 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1435 delivered on March 31, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records and the judgment of the court below, a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and this lawsuit are filed between the same parties for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is the same subject-matter of lawsuit between the same parties. However, in a prior suit, Nonparty 1 borrowed money from the defendant (the defendant's husband) by forging relevant documents in the name of the plaintiff (the plaintiff's husband) in collusion with Nonparty 2 and the plaintiff's wife, thereby forging the documents in the name of the plaintiff, and then borrowing money from the defendant (the plaintiff's husband's husband). If the provisional registration of the right to preserve the ownership transfer registration of the real estate is made and the ownership transfer registration is made based on the settlement prior to the execution of the principal registration of ownership transfer registration. This registration is null and void by the act of non-party 1's unauthorized representation, and this lawsuit is viewed as the ground for invalidity of ownership transfer registration, and it is only asserted that there is no obligation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

However, it is clear that the absence of the right of representation or the absence of the claim or the absence of the right of representation is a different method of attack and defense as to the cause of the claim that there is no cause for the registration of ownership transfer, and all it is the cause that occurred before the conclusion of pleadings in the previous suit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that all the previous suit and the principal suit are the same litigation, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the res judicata of the previous suit.

2. The plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation brought by the plaintiff against the defendant (Seoul Civil Procedure District Court 77Gahap1996 case) has res judicata with the fact that the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation became final and conclusive in favor of the plaintiff, but the existence of the claim for the cancellation of registration based on the claim, the claim, the claim, the claim, and the relation of the obligation is separate subject matter of lawsuit, so the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of the confirmation of existence of the obligation cannot be affected by the claim

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)