When the revocation of a disposition not to grant property devolving upon the judgment and the grounds for retrial are known;

If the disposition of revocation of the ownership transfer registration by the State on the ground of the disposition of revocation of ownership transfer becomes final and conclusive after the lawsuit for revocation of the sale of the property devolving upon the State becomes final and conclusive, there is no established precedent of the Supreme Court on whether the lawsuit for registration of ownership transfer based on the disposition of disapproval by the person who was originally rejected at the time of the judgment of revocation is inconsistent with the res judicata, and unless there are any special reasons otherwise, it shall be deemed that there were grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act at the time of the judgment of revocation.

Articles 422(1)8 and 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da2287, 2288 Decided April 24, 1979; 79Da420 Decided May 15, 1979; 80Da738, 739 Decided February 10, 1981; 80Da870 Decided November 10, 1981

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea and an associate of Justice

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na29 delivered on March 23, 1982

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below was rendered 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 87,000 won and 97.2,00 won and 97.7,00 won and 97.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9.7,00 won and 9,000 won and 97.7,00 won and 9,000 won and 9,000 won and 9.7,00 won and 97,00 won and 9,000 won and 97,00 won and 197,00 won and 97,000 won of the above shares and 97,00 won.

However, according to the above established facts, the disposition of revoking the sale of the above real estate on January 25, 1960, which was based on the above 67Da2545 delivered on January 31, 1968, was revoked by 76Nu211 delivered on September 28, 197, and at the time, at the time, the request for transfer registration of ownership for the sale of the above real estate against the plaintiff was made on June 30, 1959 was established by the Supreme Court established on January 31, 1968 as to whether it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the above 67Da2545 delivered on September 31, 1968, and the defendants did not have any special reason to reverse the above legal principle as to the ground for retrial under Article 4228(1)18 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the judgment. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle as to the ground for retrial under the premise that the above ground for retrial was legitimate within the period of retrial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)