(a) Validity of a disposition revoking the reversion of the Property Appeal Committee;

(b) Scope of res judicata of a judgment ordering the implementation of registration procedures for cancellation of real estate ownership transfer registration;

The res judicata effect of the judgment ordering the implementation of registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is limited only to the right to claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration and does not affect ownership itself.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 33 of the Military Affairs Act

Plaintiff

Plaintiff 1 et al. and one other

Korea

Defendant 2 and two others

Cheongju District Court Decision 70Na28 delivered on February 9, 1971

All of the plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's co-litigation's appeal are dismissed.

Defendant Republic of Korea’s appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

First, we examine Defendant Republic of Korea’s grounds for appeal.

In this case ex officio, the plaintiff's claim against the same defendant was dismissed at the first instance court, and due to the plaintiff's appeal, there was no ground for appeal against the same defendant at the original court, but it is clear by the decision of the court below that the plaintiff did not render any judgment on the appeal against the same defendant. Thus, the appeal by the defendant's Republic of Korea is unlawful and it is not possible to correct the defect. Thus, the appeal by the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed without a need to explain the grounds for appeal.

Then, according to the records on the appeal of the plaintiff co-litigants, the first instance court dismissed the lawsuit of the same intervenor on the ground that the lawsuit of the same intervenor is unlawful, and due to the same intervenor's appeal, the court below dismissed the appeal by maintaining the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in the court below. The intervenors appointed an attorney jointly with the plaintiff and submitted the appellate brief, but during that reason, the court below's decision maintaining the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed the same intervenor's lawsuit was not stated in the grounds of appeal, and the appeal by the plaintiff co-litigants is not stated in the petition of appeal.

Finally, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the real estate of this case was originally owned by Japan on August 31, 1945, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of non-party 1 (original name ○○) on the ground of sale on December 25, 1941 on the ground of sale on April 18, 1949, and the additional registration was issued to the effect that the cancellation disposition is made on August 19, 1948 by the adjudication of the Appeal Committee on Property, and that the ownership was confirmed as owned by the above non-party 1 was confirmed as owned by the above non-party 4 in the lawsuit on April 20, 195, and that the registration of ownership transfer was revoked under the name of the plaintiff's deceased non-party 2 and defendant 4's joint title transfer for the reason of sale on December 16, 1949, and that the above registration of ownership transfer was invalidated under the non-party 1's title transfer registration by the defendant 2 and the defendant 2's co-party 16.

Therefore, the decision of the Property Appeal Committee is effective as the final and conclusive judgment, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 4 who purchased the real estate from the same non-party as the above non-party 1 acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case and acquired the ownership jointly. Since the judgment of loss was finalized in the claim for the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's Republic of Korea, the plaintiff, who is the general successor of the deceased non-party 2 and the non-party 4, is not cancelled by the above final and conclusive judgment, but who is the general successor of the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant 3, and the defendant 4, who acquired the ownership registration of the real estate in this case from the same defendant in accordance with the res judicata effect of the judgment, cannot be permitted. The res judicata effect of the 4293 civil joint ownership of the real estate in this case, which the defendant's decision was passed by the Republic of Korea, does not affect the right to claim the cancellation registration, and thus, it does not violate the law of the court below's decision that ordered the ownership of the non-party 2 and the heir.

For the reasons above, the plaintiff's appeal and the joint intervenors' appeal are all dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)