Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment in a previous suit ordering the registration of ownership transfer for a part of a specific grade shall have a limitation on the subsequent suit seeking the registration of ownership transfer for a specific grade.

The final and conclusive judgment of a previous suit ordering the registration of ownership transfer for a part of a specific grade shall have res judicata effect on the previous suit to the extent of the share in the specific majority of the previous suit for the subsequent suit seeking the registration of ownership transfer for a specific majority sharing the cause of the suit with the party concerned and the

Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na829 delivered on August 31, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant ○○○○ and △△△△△.

According to the records, it can be known that the object in the case of Seoul Civil District Court 69A12,468 and the object in the case of this case are different from the object in Dongdaemun-gu ( Address omitted), Seoul, which is the lot number mark after the land substitution confirmation in the judgment, the object in the previous suit can be specified at 150 square meters [one hundred and fifty square meters (No. 614 square meters and one of the above address omitted)]. If the judgment against the plaintiff as to the previous suit becomes final and conclusive, the object in the case of this 150 square meters as to the above 150 square meters and the party and the cause of the claim (no. 75.7 percent of the above 614th 9th 7th 614.9th 7th 65.7th 7th 7th 6150 of the above total 150 square meters of the above previous suit are different from the object in the previous suit and the judgment of the court below is different from that of the previous suit.

However, according to the evidence No. 1 (judgment) as adopted by the court below, when indicating 150 square meters which are the object of the claim in a prior suit, the detailed limit is divided as the object of the attached drawing and the inside is indicated as part (A). Not only is it a survey drawing but also there is no number of signs which can specify the limit with other land parts of 614 square meters and Hobbe, 614.9 square meters. Thus, the court below's disposition rejecting the Defendant's main defense is reasonable in terms of the result.

(2) We examine the second ground for appeal.

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below, the plaintiff's preference cultivation of 150 square meters of the previous land on the judgment of the court below was completed with farmland distribution and repayment was completed in accordance with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and the number of five parcels of land on the judgment of the court below is changed to the above ( Address omitted), the land and five parcels of land on the judgment of the court below became the right holder of the right to the land in dispute as to the land in this case, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in the above fact-finding by the court below. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit should be accepted, and the purport of denying the above fact-finding, the purport of asserting otherwise, and the purport of asserting that there was no agreement among the joint owners

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)