A. Effect of res judicata

B. Whether it is against the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit to claim the completion of the prescriptive prescription on the ground of the commencement of possession on the land after seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of prescriptive prescription on the ground of the commencement of possession on the land in the previous suit, and then the loss is finalized

A. The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit that is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit that has res judicata, and it does not allow a subsequent suit that is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit that has res judicata, and even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, if the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit,

B. Despite the fact that Gap's possession of the land in the prior suit against Eul and the acquisition by transfer was completed on the ground that it was rejected, the subsequent suit asserts that the acquisition by transfer of ownership was completed on the ground that it was donated and occupied in the prior suit. It is obvious that it is a mere attack method as to the existence or absence of the right to claim transfer registration based on the completion of the acquisition by transfer of ownership, which is the subject matter of the prior suit, in the subsequent suit, and it would have reached the conclusion that Gap may refuse the request for removal of the building in the prior suit on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by transfer of ownership on the land in the prior suit, and therefore, it is not permissible as it goes against the res judicata effect of the judgment in the prior suit.

(b) Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da1179 delivered on August 29, 1967 (Gong1995Sang, 655) 94Da4684 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 655). (b) Supreme Court Decision 93Da60120 delivered on April 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1439) 94Da28017 delivered on January 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1128)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na3720 delivered on July 22, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on November 15, 198 for the transfer of ownership on the ground of the claim that the acquisition by prescription has been completed on November 15, 1988, and the judgment against the plaintiff became final and conclusive. Thus, although the lawsuit against the plaintiff was filed for the removal of the defendant's building constructed on the land in this case, it is a lawsuit for the removal of the defendant's building on November 14, 1965, which was constructed on the land in this case, unlike the ground for the commencement of possession in the previous lawsuit, the defendant's legitimate right to use the land in this case, starting with the possession of the above land by Non-party 1 on November 14, 1965,

According to the records, the subject matter of a prior suit is pointed out in the grounds of appeal by the defendant, and it is clear that the subject matter of a prior suit is the defendant's right to remove the building on the land owned by the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in this case. However, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit does not allow the prior suit to be judged prior to the prior suit or inconsistent with the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit, and the judgment of the court below on November 15, 1965, which did not allow the prior suit to be judged differently from the judgment on the prior suit, and it cannot be accepted as the defendant's assertion that the prior suit would not have reached the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit for the reason that the defendant would not have reached the conclusion that the prior suit would not have reached the existence or absence of a prior suit on the ground that the prior suit would not have reached the conclusion of a prior suit.

2. Other grounds of appeal are that there was an error of incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, and lack of reasons, since the defendant did not render a judgment on the ground that the acquisition by prescription of superficies was completed on November 14, 198 after the lapse of 20 years from November 14, 1968 after receiving the gift of this case from the land of this case for the possession of the building on the ground, and the defendant did not hold that it was unjustifiable. However, according to the records, it is not recognized that the defendant occupied the land of this case with the intention to acquire superficies for 20 years. Thus, even if the court below neglected its judgment, it cannot be viewed as an error of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal on this point

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)