In a case where both the litigation in this case and the litigation in which a final and conclusive judgment have been filed are the litigation claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the same real estate between the same parties, the grounds for invalidation of the cause of the registration of transfer that became the object of the request for cancellation registration in the previous suit are the events of document forgery, and whether res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment affects the litigation in this case as it

Since it is not recognized that the act of forging documents, which is a ground for nullifying the cause of the preceding suit, or the act of forging documents or the act of establishing the principal suit, could be an independent means of attack and defense respectively on the same basis, and that the principal suit could be an independent means of attack and defense, the res judicata effect of the final judgment in the preceding suit shall extend to the lawsuit of this case.

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1020 Delivered on September 9, 1980

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap5672) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant, on July 22, 1971, received from the Gwanak-gu Seoul Civil District Court registration office, No. 59609, with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list, implemented the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on July 22, 1970.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 5 (each copy of the register), Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2-2 (each copy of the land cadastre), and Gap evidence No. 3 (the family register) without dispute over each establishment, the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, such as the entry of the purport of the claim as to the real estate entered in the attached list which was originally owned by the plaintiff was made by the plaintiff as to the real estate in the attached list No. 59607 and the building No. 59609 in the purport of the claim, is recognized.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal is that the plaintiff's wife, non-party 1 and the non-party 2's wife and the non-party 3 conspired to borrow money as security on July 22, 1970, by stealing the seal reported by the plaintiff's seal imprint and forging the sale certificate necessary for borrowing money as security, power of attorney, etc., and deliver it to the non-party 4, who is the defendant's representative who is not aware of the fact that he obtained the plaintiff's certificate of seal imprint and deliver it to the non-party 1, who is the defendant's agent, and he borrowed 2 million won as security, and the provisional registration of preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the defendant's name was made and the loan was not repaid thereafter, so the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name has been made. This is because the plaintiff and the defendant did not have such obligation, and it is invalid

In this regard, the defendant's claim for the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is a final and conclusive judgment against the plaintiff in the same lawsuit as this case, and the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is in conflict with the res judicata effect, so first of all, the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is in conflict with the plaintiff's res judicata effect, and according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 No. 1 and No. 2 as to this issue, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the performance of the same registration as to the same real estate and provisional registration under the separate name of the defendant, and the decision against the plaintiff's dismissal in the court of Seoul District Court, the first instance on Oct. 16, 1972 against the defendant's claim for the cancellation of the above transfer registration was pronounced, and the part against the plaintiff's claim for the above transfer registration in the above judgment becomes final and conclusive at that time. The plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration was made in collusion with his wife No. 3 and the plaintiff's wife No. 1 and the plaintiff's related documents forged the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration.

Therefore, both the litigation in this case and the litigation in which the above final judgment have been rendered are identical to the basic facts and legal relations that constitute the cause of the claim as a litigation for the cancellation registration of the same real estate ownership transfer registration. The grounds for invalidation of the registration of transfer, which became the object of the request for cancellation registration, in the entire litigation by the plaintiff's attorney, were in the use of document forgery, and they are in the existence of an obligation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the grounds for invalidation of the previous litigation are limited to the use of document forgery, but the above grounds for invalidation cannot be deemed to be limited to the use of document forgery, based on the evidence No. 1 in the previous litigation, and it is not recognized that the above grounds for invalidation are dealt with the facts that can be an independent means of attack defense (the plaintiff has received a favorable judgment of confirmation of existence of an obligation against the defendant after the above final judgment, and the above judgment cannot be hindered in the conclusion that the plaintiff's appeal cannot be dismissed due to the plaintiff's grounds for rejection of the final judgment and the plaintiff's appeal cannot be dismissed (the plaintiff's appeal is without merit).

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)