Method of disputing the validity of the transfer registration made by the protocol prior to filing a lawsuit.

If the registration of ownership transfer of this case was made by the protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit between the non-party (A) and the defendant, the defendant cannot dispute the validity of the registration of ownership transfer, which was passed through the name of the non-party, because the res judicata of the protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit is res judicata unless the cancellation

Articles 206 and 431 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 81Na23 delivered on November 20, 1981

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the real estate of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 2, who was originally owned by the non-party 1's fleet, but the non-party 3,00,000 won was not passed through the registration of ownership transfer after purchasing it around 1947, and the defendant inherited it and decided to borrow 3,00,000 won from the non-party 4 around April 1976, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer transfer registration for the purpose of the security in advance for the purpose of the security, and completed the provisional registration of the above non-party 4's right to claim ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 4, and issued the power of attorney to prepare the telephone settlement report, but the non-party 4 did not make the above provisional registration in violation of the agreement and did not make the above 3,000,000 won loan, and rejected the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration under the above provisional registration under the premise that it was invalid.

However, according to the records, if the defendant did not know about the above non-party 4's transfer registration under the name of 0,00,000 won, and then borrowed 3,00,000 won for the above non-party 4's new real estate under the name of 00,000 won for the above non-party 4's transfer registration, and the court below rejected the above non-party 4's provisional registration under the name of 00,000 won for the above non-party 4's transfer registration under the name of 00,000 won for the above non-party 4's transfer registration. The court below rejected the above non-party 7's transfer registration under the name of 00,000 won for the above non-party 4's transfer registration under the name of 00,000 won for the above non-party 4's transfer registration under the name of 0,000 won for the above non-party 1's transfer registration under the name of 1's.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young