Effect of res judicata in a subrogated lawsuit by a creditor and interest in a lawsuit

It is alleged that the creditor has purchased the land from the debtor in subrogation of a third party on the ground that he/she purchased the land from the debtor and sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation thereof by asserting that the transfer registration of ownership of the land was without the cause.

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 13 others

Cheongju District Court Decision 75Na70 delivered on March 23, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court.

The gist of this case's ground of appeal is as follows: first, this case's lawsuit does not seek implementation of the cancellation procedure of registration in the name of the defendant, etc. on behalf of the defendant non-party 1 in the first instance trial, and although the plaintiff seeks implementation of the cancellation procedure of registration in the name of his own possession directly against the defendants, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim by subrogation of the above non-party 1; second, the res judicata effect of the final judgment in the judgment on this case's real estate between the above non-party 1 and the defendant, etc. does not extend to the plaintiff; second, the res judicata effect of the final judgment affects the plaintiff;

Doctrine,

1. When examining soar in detail, this case's land is originally owned by the deceased non-party 2, and the plaintiff purchased the registration of ownership transfer from the co-defendant of the court below, who is the inheritor of the deceased, and the non-party 1, and the defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the final and conclusive judgment obtained by the method of deception, so it is obvious that the above non-party 2 is seeking cancellation of the registration under the name of the defendants by subrogation of the above non-party 1, and therefore, the court below's decision accepting the lawsuit by subrogation of the above non-party 1 is unreasonable.

2. However, Defendant 2 filed a lawsuit claiming the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure with Defendant 1, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, and Defendant 1 as co-defendant 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Defendant 1 as co-defendant 1 in the first instance trial, and Defendant 2 as co-defendant 1, Nonparty 11, and Defendant 1 in the first instance trial. The lawsuit is concluded as a final and conclusive judgment in favor of Defendant 2, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendants as stated in the above decision, and the order of the final and conclusive judgment was cancelled with respect to this case’s land by Nonparty 3 and seven, the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 were ordered to the above non-party 11 and Defendant 1 to perform the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the sale order in sequence, in order to the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1, the seller’s right to claim the ownership transfer registration against the above land.

However, this case's lawsuit is based on the purport of the plaintiff's purchase of this case's land from the above non-party 1 who is the owner of this case's land, and the plaintiff's subrogation asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants was without any cause and sought the implementation of the procedure for cancellation thereof. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the above final judgment is unlawful on the ground that there is the above final judgment, and since the creditor's subrogation exercises the debtor's right to the other party from the same position as the debtor, the creditor's final judgment as to the right cannot be taken over by the debtor and the other party, and it cannot be viewed that the relation with the debtor and the other party which became final and conclusive by the final judgment cannot be changed by subrogation. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the rejection can not be dismissed because the subrogation claim is without reason, but this point is inconsistent with this point, and if the registration between the above non-party 37 and the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 is without any interest, it cannot be dismissed.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of res judicata and the interest in the lawsuit, and since such illegality affected the judgment, it reversed the original judgment under Articles 400 and 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)