(a) Where the previous and subsequent actions are not the same; and

(b)where a decision of quasi-examination becomes final and conclusive, the granting of the adjudication shall return to the same effect as it had not existed from the beginning;

On March 8, 1965, quasi-adjudications on the ground that the cause of the claim is different from the cause of the claim, and it can be seen that the previous suit is asserted as a new fact after the closing of argument in the previous suit, and the previous suit is not the same as the previous suit, since the previous suit is not the same.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 431 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 640 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na128 delivered on December 11, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na128 delivered on December 11, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 3, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2’s attorney are examined as to the first ground for appeal.

According to the records, the action of 1965Ga8972 (hereinafter referred to as "the action") was brought to an auction court for quasi-deliberation of the decision of permission of the auction on March 8, 1965. The court below's rejection of the defendant's claim on the premise that "the cause of the action was not the same as the previous lawsuit and the previous lawsuit were not the same as the previous lawsuit." Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's claim on the premise that the previous lawsuit and the previous lawsuit were not the same as the previous lawsuit and the previous lawsuit are not the same as the previous lawsuit."

The supplementary grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 and the grounds of appeal by the above Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are examined. Even if there are defects which are grounds for objection or appeal against the auction procedure, in principle, if the procedure has already been completed, such defects cannot be reconvened. In the case where the procedure defects such as the decision of permission of auction on real estate auction were to be grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act, and where the decision of permission of auction is revoked and confirmed lawfully due to such reasons, the above permission of auction remains to the same effect as those of the first, and the above permission of auction remains to the same effect before the cancellation of the decision of permission of auction, and the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate by Defendant 2 and 1 cannot be exempted from the cancellation as the registration of invalidation of cause, and therefore, each transfer registration in the name of Defendant 3 or 1 cannot be exempted from the cancellation as the registration of invalidation, and therefore, it is not justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

Defendant 3’s ground of appeal No. 2 and Defendant 1, and Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 4 are examined. The revocation of the decision to grant a successful bid by the quasi-examination decision cannot be equally discussed with the case of cancellation of a contract or termination of a contract between the parties to the contract, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received certain benefits from the Defendant, etc. through the real estate auction procedure conducted between the Plaintiff and the parties to the contract, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendants’ assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff had the duty to restore to the Plaintiff, is justifiable, and the lower court’s assertion that there is an error of law by misapprehending

The grounds of appeal No. 5 by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are examined.

In regard to the plaintiff's assertion and claim for damages against the defendant 2 of this real estate title of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) and apap 2 Ga, the defendant's legal representative could not respond to the plaintiff's claim against the above house until he receives payment of the beneficial expenses equivalent to 500,000 won paid by the defendant (Records 125, the record), and thereafter on September 11, 1968, the plaintiff's legal representative withdrawn the claim against the above name and the above name and the defendant's legal representative consented to it. Accordingly, the above defendant's defense has no need to make a judgment. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's decision was not made, and there is no error of law in law as to the omission of the judgment right, and there is no error of law as to the omission of the plaintiff's legal representative's third oral proceedings (Records 365, the record).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the unanimous opinion of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court