(a) Whether a party who lost a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration of ownership can file a claim for registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true owner’s name based on a judgment in favor of the party in the subsequent lawsuit for confirmation of ownership (affirmative);

B. meaning of confession in court and whether confession in court is binding on confession in court other than that in court (negative)

C. In a case where Party A and Party B did not pay the principal and interest of the debt between Party B and Party B, whether Party B’s telephone for filing a lawsuit against Party B to implement the principal registration procedure based on provisional registration with respect to the disputed real estate, whether Party A constitutes a successor after the closing of argument where Party B purchased the disputing real estate from Party B before the principal registration is completed (negative)

A. The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment does not affect the existence or absence of a legal relationship, which is a premise, only on the theory of determination on the existence of a legal relationship alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and does not affect the existence or absence of a legal relationship. Thus, even if a final and conclusive judgment which accepted cancellation of registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void, res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment does not affect the existence or absence of a right to claim cancellation of registration and does not affect the existence or absence of a real estate itself. Therefore, the party who lost the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership can

B. The confession under Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act has binding force shall be limited to the confession in a trial. The confession in a trial refers to the confession in a trial, which means the statement of facts unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations of the other party, on the date of pleading or on the date of preparation procedure, and the confession in a lawsuit other than the court is only one cause of evidence, and shall not be binding

C. In a case where B does not pay the principal and interest of the obligation between B and B by the fixed date, if B performed the principal registration procedure based on provisional registration with respect to the disputed real estate, C purchased the disputing real estate from B before B completes the registration of ownership transfer due to this act, and C, which completed the registration of ownership transfer, does not constitute a successor after the closing of argument under Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(a) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 261 (c) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1792 Decided Aug. 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1208) (Gong1991, 578) decided Dec. 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 578) (Gong1991, 580), Supreme Court Decision 72Da130 Decided Feb. 29, 1972 (Gong142) Decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1044)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14765 delivered on August 27, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na45297 delivered on May 6, 1992

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the disposition of the court below that confirmed that the land in this case (referring to the address omitted) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 380 square meters is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, or violation of the rules of evidence.

It is the theory of the lawsuit that the facts recognized in the civil final and conclusive judgment also become a fluorent evidence in other related cases, except in extenuating circumstances, but it can be rejected if it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the civil judgment in light of the contents of other evidence such as this case.

Many arguments that are the arguments of the court below's exclusive authority cannot be employed as a fact-finding case. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

1. As long as the factual basis is deemed reasonable by the lower court, it is consistent with the purport of the judgment of remanding party members, and there is no illegality by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, which are the premise thereof. Thus, even if the judgment that cited cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer of real estate was null and void, the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of the right to claim cancellation registration which was the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of ownership

Therefore, the party who has lost his lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership registration can file a subsequent lawsuit for ownership confirmation and file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true owner's name based on the final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu26482, Dec. 21, 1990; 84Meu1792, Aug. 19, 1986).

3. The confession under Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act is binding only on confessions in accordance with the provision of Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act. The confession in court refers to the confession in court, which means the statement of facts unfavorable to himself, consistent with the allegations of the other party, on the date of pleading or on the date of preparation procedure, and the confession in other litigation is only one cause of evidence, and is not binding under Article 261 of the

No. 12 of the No. 12 (Protocol of Pleadings) of the No. 12 (Protocol of Pleadings) of the No. 12 (Protocol of Pleadings) cannot be deemed as a confession in the instant case as a lawsuit different from the instant case, so there is no binding force as a confession in the instant case, and thus, the lower court rejected it by other evidence, and cannot be said to have erred in the misapprehension

4. According to the evidence No. 7-2 (Judgment), the Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1590 delivered on the ground that the defendant's provisional registration against the non-party was rejected in the claim for cancellation of provisional registration filed by the non-party on the ground that the provisional registration in the name of the non-party was forged and altered against the defendant's will against the defendant's will. The judgment's res judicata is limited to the defendant's non-party that there is no right to claim cancellation of provisional registration between the defendant and the non-party. Thus, the court below held that the provisional registration was invalidated due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it conflicts

5. According to Gap evidence No. 6 (Settlement Protocol), when the defendant and the non-party did not pay the principal and interest of the debt by the fixed date, the defendant's settlement prior to the execution of the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration with respect to the real estate of this case to the above non-party is recognized, but the plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the purchase of the real estate of this case from the defendant before the completion of the registration of ownership transfer due to such purchase does not constitute the successor after the closing of argument under Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, there

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss all.

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.