The physical and visual scope of res judicata of final and conclusive judgment confirming the ownership of standing timber planted in forest land;

If Gap filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation from Eul that the ownership of standing timber planted in the above forest and field was owned by Eul on the ground that all the standing timber planted in the above forest and field of this case was purchased by Eul, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is, then Gap purchased from Eul, the actual purchase of the standing timber is limited to the standing timber that can be cut upon Gap's permission from the authorities at the time of purchase, even if the above final and conclusive judgment was rendered, unless the judgment becomes null and void automatically or is revoked by a retrial lawsuit, the standing timber existing in the above forest and field at the time of the final and conclusive judgment as at the time of res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment, as long as the above final and conclusive judgment became void automatically or is not revoked by a retrial lawsuit, it shall be deemed that all the standing timber existing in the above forest and field were owned by Gap at the time of the conclusion of arguments in the above final and conclusive judgment as at the time of res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant’s Gangwon-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2728 delivered on January 21, 1987

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

As determined by the court below, on October 28, 1962, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above non-party seeking confirmation that he had ownership of standing timber planted in the above forest area from the non-party who was the owner of the above forest area at the time when the plaintiff purchased all the standing timber in the above forest area, and the court rendered a favorable judgment on February 7, 1968, and the judgment became final and conclusive, and if the plaintiff conducted the method of expressing that he was the plaintiff's ownership on September 7, 1969, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the above standing timber. Accordingly, it is not possible for the defendant to acquire ownership of the above standing timber, and even if the plaintiff acquired ownership of the above forest from the above non-party on October 28, 1962, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the above forest area from the above non-party after obtaining permission from the purchase authority at the time of the above purchase, and as long as the above judgment became final and conclusive, the plaintiff's ownership in the above forest area can not be asserted at the time of final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if there were the above final judgment and public announcement procedures, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for ownership verification against the above non-party on the ground that the plaintiff purchased only the standing timber that could have been cut for timber at the time of the purchase from the above non-party, and the standing timber that could be cut for at least 35 years at the time is received from the above non-party, and 12 standing timber in the attached list (9), (10), and (7) through (9) of the judgment of the court below in which 20 years or longer have passed since only 5 standing timber in the attached list (9), (10), and (10) of the same list (7) through (9) of the judgment of the court below were owned by the plaintiff, and only these standing timber are owned by the plaintiff, and the remaining standing timber excluding 5 standing timber out of the above list (1) through (10) and 12 among the standing timber recorded in the above list (1) through (10) of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)