The objective scope of res judicata in a judgment claiming ownership transfer registration;

The objective scope of res judicata effect of a judgment in a claim for ownership transfer registration, which is the cause of a claim for sale, is limited to the existence of a claim for registration contained in the main text of the judgment, and it does not affect the existence of a claim contract which is the cause of a claim for registration as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and therefore, it does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the above final judgment even if, after the registration of ownership transfer based on a constructive confession judgment with a false address was revoked as an appeal filed by the Defendants, and the plaintiff's dismissal decision became final and conclusive, the above judgment is revoked as a subsequent appeal filed by the defendants, and even if the above registration is judged as being consistent with the substantive relation

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da558 Decided June 24, 1969

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, Attorneys Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 81Na996 delivered on April 23, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the deceased on December 18, 1965, who was before the deceased non-party 1 died and purchased 355 square meters (hereinafter "the site in this case") from the deceased Gyeongcheon-gun, Busan District Court. The plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer transfer registration on the site in Busan District Court's Busan District Court's order that he obtained a favorable judgment ( January 19, 1966), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the site in this case in accordance with the above decision, and the deceased non-party 1 was deceased on June 15, 197 and his children were succeeded to 6/18 shares of the site in this case, and the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's claim for the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff 1, who was the plaintiff 1's heir's right and interest in the above site in Busan District Court's order to revoke the above plaintiff 1's appeal.

According to the records, even if Defendant 1 rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 1 purchased the land of this case from the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1, in the lawsuit of claim for ownership transfer registration filed by Defendant 1 against the plaintiff non-party 1, the lawsuit of this case is the right to claim ownership transfer registration, and the objective scope of res judicata effect of the judgment in the lawsuit is limited to the existence of the right to claim registration included in the decision, and it does not affect the existence of the claim contract which is the cause of the right to claim registration (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da558 delivered on June 24, 1969). Thus, in the lawsuit of claim for ownership transfer registration cancellation due to the cause of this case's invalidation of land ownership registration filed by the plaintiff non-party 1 against the defendant 1, etc., and rejected the plaintiffs' claim by accepting the plaintiff's claim that Defendant 1 purchased the land of this case from the deceased non-party 1, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to res judicata effect.

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)