(a) Whether a lawsuit can be brought again on a case which has become a judicial compromise;

(b) Exercise of a security right and a right to demand an explanation to a legitimate lessee;

A. If the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the site for the purpose of securing a claim and the obligation is not fulfilled, if a judicial compromise is reached to deliver the site for the purpose of exercising a security right, the title of obligation is already established, and thus, the lawsuit claiming the delivery of the site is unlawful.

B. In the above case, the creditor may not demand an explanation of such immovables against the lessee who is under possession by lawfully concluding a lease contract with the offerer who is the debtor for the exercise of the security right.

Articles 206 and 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 372 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292DaDa292 delivered on October 29, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 7354 delivered on October 29, 195, Supreme Court Decision 7Da282 delivered on July 28, 199, Supreme Court Decision 372(5) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and nine others

Seoul Central District Court (71 Ghana5659) in the first instance trial

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The Plaintiff’s main claim against the Defendant 2, dismissed the part of the site delivery and the conjunctive claim against the said Defendant, and the remainder of the claim against the said Defendant and the remainder of the claim against the said Defendants, are dismissed.

(3) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As its principal claim, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff: (a) 26th 26th 1st 1st 26th 1st 22th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 15th 2nd 2nd

(1) In the case of Defendant 1’s 1st floor of the annexed drawing (A) in the 6th floor size:

Defendant 3: (b) In the case of the first floor (B) of the drawing, in the case of 2 square meters and 5 square meters; (c) in the case of the Defendant 4 square meters and 5 square meters in the case of the first floor (C) of the drawing; (d) in the case of the Defendant 5 square meters and 7 square meters in the case of the first floor (D) of the drawing; (e) in the case of the first floor (D) of the drawing, in the case of the Defendant 6, in the case of the first floor (E) of the drawing, in the case of the first floor (E), in the case of the second floor (f) of the drawing, in the case of the second floor (G) of the drawing, in the case of the Defendant 8, in the case of the second floor (G) of the drawing, in the case of the Defendant 9, in the case of 3 square meters and 5 square meters in the case of the second floor (i) of the drawing, in the case of the Defendant 2, in the case of the first floor(D) of the drawing,

(2) Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

(3) Only the above paragraphs 1 and 2 may be provisionally executed.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff:

(1) Defendant 1: (a) Section 1 (A) of the annexed drawing; (b) Section 2:5 square meters in the case of Defendant 3; (c) Section 1 of the annexed drawing; (d) Section 1 of the same drawing; Section 2:5 square meters in the case of Defendant 4; (c) Section 4 square meters in the case of Defendant 5; (d) Section 1 of the same drawing; Section 7:5 square meters in the case of Defendant 5; (e) Section 1 of the same drawing; (e) Section 7; (f) Section 6 square meters in the case of Defendant 6; (f) Section 3 square meters in the part of Section 2 (f) of the same drawing; (f) Section 2 of the same drawing; (f) Section 3 square meters in the case of Defendant 8; and (f) Section 3 square meters in the case of Defendant 2; and (f) Section 5 square meters in the case of Defendant 2 of the same drawing;

(2) Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

(3) The judgment that a provisional execution may be effected only under the above Paragraph (1).

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials.

The building (building number omitted) stated in the purport of claim on the 37th and above ground of Mapo-dong, Seoul and its ground was originally owned by Defendant 2. The above defendant resided in the part of the 2nd floor (h) of the above building, and occupied the remaining parts of the building as stated in the purport of claim by giving them respectively to the Defendants, and possessed them, and as to the above building site, the contract for sale and purchase on March 20, 1971 was No. 8135, Yongsan District Court No. 8135, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and the provisional registration for preserving the claim for transfer of ownership was made before the plaintiff on August 25, 198. The above provisional registration was received by the above 300,030, and the principal registration of transfer of ownership was made in the above provisional registration, and there is no dispute between the Respondent and the Respondent on the facts that the above Respondent had been made for the purpose of provisional registration on the Respondent Gap evidence No. 2 (Settlement Protocol) and the Respondent No. 16181, the plaintiff's 27181 and the above.

The defendants stated that the provisional registration of the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the above site was made in collusion with the defendant 5 and the non-party 2 without knowledge of the owner, and that the principal registration based on this provisional registration is a registration of invalidation as a matter of course, since the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration is made by forging the seal, and therefore the principal registration based on this provisional registration is a registration of invalidation. In full view of the court below's results of the examination of criminal records and the results of defendant 5's personal examination at the trial of the party, the above provisional registration is null and void as it is not against the defendant 2's will, as alleged by the defendants. However, since this registration was made through execution of a protocol of compromise as stated above, unless this procedure of compromise is revoked by a lawsuit for retrial, it cannot be asserted that the above provisional registration is null and void, unless there is any evidence to deem that the remaining defendants did not come against the above intent of the defendant 2.

The plaintiff's claim is examined on the premise of the above facts.

As the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant 2 based on the ownership of the above site and sought removal of the above building site and removal of the above building site against the other defendants. Since the above-mentioned plaintiff and the defendant 2 sought removal of the above building site for the purpose of internal security as seen earlier, the ownership transfer registration between the plaintiff in the above site was made for the purpose of internal security, and therefore, the above-mentioned plaintiff and the defendant 2 can not claim removal of the building, and as long as the legal compromise was reached to order the exercise of security right as to the above ground building, the part of the claim for removal of the building cannot be dismissed, and as the next claim for removal of the building site has a legal compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant as seen above, it shall be dismissed by deeming it unlawful.

Next, in the case of this case where the right of removal of the building, which is the premise of the right of removal, cannot be cited for the reasons mentioned above, the plaintiff's right of removal against the above defendants should also be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff's right of removal against the above defendants is groundless.

Second, the plaintiff, as a preliminary claim against the defendant 2, sought an explanation of each part of possession of the defendants for the purpose of exercising the security right against the defendant 2. Since the part of the claim against the defendant 2 had already been established by the legal compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant, this is also unlawful as a duplicate claim. The remaining claims against the defendants are also unlawful as a duplicate claim. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to have a title to ask the above defendants to ask for explanation against the third party (not an illegal possessor in relation to the defendant 2) as a exercise of the security right against the defendant 2, and it cannot be viewed as a non-justifiable claim unless the plaintiff proves that there has been a title to ask for explanation against the above defendants.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is dismissed on the ground that the principal claim against the defendant 2 and the ancillary claim against the above defendant are all unlawful. The plaintiff's main claim against the above defendant is dismissed on the ground that the main claim against the above defendant is without merit, the main claim against the remaining defendants, and the conjunctive claim against the other defendants. Thus, the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the costs of the lawsuit are revoked and it is so decided as per the Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)