A. Whether a judgment contrary to the precedents that declared that there was an omission of judgment, rejection of evidence without counter-proof, a failure of reasoning, or an incomplete hearing constitutes a ground for lack of right (negative)

(b) The case holding that both families are different before and after the claim for registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of the trust contract, as different grounds for the claim;

A. The judgment of the court below that there was a omission of judgment as to the evidence, rejection of the evidence without any opposing evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, and violation of the rules of evidence, and the facts that the parties did not assert were found to be erroneous in the incomplete hearing and the decision of the party members pointed out in the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 4288Da131 delivered on February 14, 1956: Supreme Court Decision 4294Da146 delivered on December 28, 1961: Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1347 delivered on April 24, 1962) is merely a declaration that the above error constituted a violation of the rules of evidence, and all of the arguments mentioned above are not grounds under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The reason for the Defendant’s claim in the previous suit is that the Defendant acquired the right of management of the automobile maintenance plant owned by the deceased (A) and arranged the liabilities of the deceased (A) and operated the above maintenance plant normally, and the deceased (A) concluded a trust agreement with the Defendant under which the title of the instant real estate was entrusted to the Defendant for the management of the said maintenance plant, and terminated the said trust agreement only for the convenience of the network (A). The reason for the claim in the instant suit is that (A) transferred the title of the instant real estate to the Defendant in the sense that it entrusted the management of the said automobile maintenance plant with the Defendant and secured the Defendant’s obligations to the Defendant, but the trust agreement was terminated after the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing of the previous suit. Although the two lawsuits are identical, the parties to the instant lawsuit are clearly different, it cannot be said that the judgment of the Defendant’s previous suit contradicts the res judicata effect.

(a) Article 11(1)3 (b) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings;

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-apap

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na3042 delivered on June 30, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of rights:

The judgment of the court below is not just a violation of the law, even if the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the omission of judgment as to the evidence, rejection of the evidence without opposing evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, and violation of the rules of evidence, and the fact that the parties did not assert, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, but merely declared that the above error constitutes a violation of the law, and it is nothing more than a mere fact that the court decision of party members in the opinion of the court below declared that the above error constitutes a violation of the law.

2. With respect to a licensed appeal:

(1) (Ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5) The court of first instance, cited by the court below, held that the deceased non-party 1 owned an automobile maintenance plant at the original time and managed it, and the defendant had a total of KRW 27,87,736, and KRW 39,306,575 against the third party. The defendant received the above maintenance plant from the defendant and operated the above maintenance plant, and the defendant did not know that the above third party's debt was acquired from the above third party as business profit of the above maintenance plant and collected the defendant's debt to the above deceased, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal reasoning of the court below's order that the court below rejected the above construction of the above maintenance plant under the name of the court below, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts that the court below did not know that there was a violation of the law of evidence as to the deceased's duty to maintain the above maintenance plant and the above construction of the above movable property by the court's order.

(2) (Ground of appeal No. 3) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the records, the ground of appeal by the defendant is that the defendant takes over the management right of the above vehicle maintenance plant owned by the above deceased between the defendant and the defendant to dispose of the deceased's debts and operate the above maintenance plant normally, and the above deceased concluded a trust contract with the defendant to transfer the title of this real estate, etc. to the defendant for the management of the above maintenance plant and terminated the above trust contract only for convenience of the above deceased, while the above defendant entered into a trust contract with the defendant to transfer the title of this real estate to the defendant for the above repair plant. The ground of appeal by this case is that the above defendant entered into an agreement with the defendant on the same facts as the judgment of the court below and entrusted the business management of the above automobile maintenance plant and the management of the above real estate in the sense of securing the defendant's debts to the defendant, but the above trust contract was terminated after the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings, and there is no error of res judicata effect as to the judgment of res judicata.

(3) (Ground of appeal No. 6) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant operated the above maintenance plant and operated the above maintenance plant with net profit of KRW 39,141,09,00, and the above deceased's future deposit amount of KRW 13,373,00,00 and KRW 23,852,256, out of the amount of the defendant's debt owed to the third party that the defendant accepted by the defendant, 39,141,098, and KRW 11,428,736, as well as the amount of debt owed to the above deceased's defendant by the above maintenance plant until June 1979, and the above deceased's future deposit amount of KRW 13,373,00,00 and KRW 23,852,257,000,000,000,000,000,000,037,0.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)