Cases recognized as contrary to res judicata

In a case where the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for removal of a house and the claim of the same claim as that of this case based on the ownership of this site and the lawsuit for request for the delivery of a site become final and conclusive, even if the non-party has confirmed that the lawsuit against the plaintiffs was lost by filing a lawsuit for the removal of a house and the claim for the transfer of ownership based on the termination of the trust of this site, the non-party's right to claim the transfer of ownership was denied in the judgment and cannot be deemed to have been confirmed as the plaintiffs' ownership. Therefore, the lawsuit cannot be deemed to have been instituted based on new facts after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, such as removal of a house between the

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da359 delivered on September 12, 1963, 68Da2437 delivered on May 13, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 8266 delivered on September 12, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 202Da899 delivered on September 12, 196)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70Ga2098, 2405)

Of the part against the plaintiff, etc. (Counterclaim defendant, etc.), the part concerning the removal of house and delivery of land in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The lawsuit shall be dismissed.

All appeals by the plaintiff et al. (as to the part of damages claim and counterclaim claim) are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

In the principal office:

The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall remove and deliver to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, etc.) the 2414-54 to 72 square meters of the Nam-gu, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, 2414-54 to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, etc.) a house of 12 square meters, 12 square meters, 5 square meters, 22 square meters, 5 square meters, and 1 square meters, 5 square meters, 5 square meters, and 1 square meters, 5 square meters, and 6 square meters, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

In a counterclaim,

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) will implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on September 10, 1953 to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) about 2414-54 to 72, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu.

All costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc. (Counterclaim defendant).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) removed and deliver to the Plaintiff, etc. (Counterclaim Defendant, etc.), Daegu-si, Nam-gu, 2414-54 large 72 square meters and 12 square meters and 22 square meters and 12 square meters and 5 square meters and 6 square meters and 5 square meters and 5 square meters and 62,000 won and 432,00 won and more.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

Since the part of the plaintiff et al.'s main lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. (hereinafter simply "the plaintiff et al.")'s claim for removal of house and delivery of site against the plaintiff et al.'s main lawsuit is an unlawful lawsuit against the res judicata effect of the final judgment rendered on the same case as the plaintiff et al.'s main lawsuit, the plaintiff et al. raised a favorable judgment on February 10, 1966, and the plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit for removal of house and delivery of site against the defendant et al., and the plaintiff et al. dismissed the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the plaintiff et al. on April 11, 1967, which conflict with the final judgment rendered on the same case as the plaintiff et al.'s main lawsuit against the plaintiff et al., but the plaintiff et al. appealed's appeal against it, but the plaintiff et al.'s appeal against it was not accepted by the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al.'s appeal against the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

However, in the above final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff et al. lost that the plaintiff et al. did not acquire ownership since it was purchased from the non-party 1 who was the original owner. However, since the above non-party became the plaintiff and the plaintiff et al. brought a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer transfer registration on the ground of termination of trust of the above site caused by the defendant et al., the plaintiff et al. became final and conclusive after which the plaintiff et al. was the plaintiff et al., so long as the ownership of this case was confirmed to exist in the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al. of this case (pathy removal and site delivery) alleged that the plaintiff et al. of this case does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment as stated above. Thus, according to the contents of evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 without dispute over the establishment and the purport of the parties' arguments, the above non-party et al. became the plaintiff et al. of this case and the plaintiff et al. of this case cannot be seen as being dismissed by the plaintiff's appeal No.

The plaintiff et al. alleged that the above site of the issue of ownership was illegally occupied by the defendant from July 7, 1964, and thus it cannot be used. Thus, the plaintiff et al. claimed KRW 432,00 for the last three years using the rate of KRW 12,00 per month equivalent to the rent. Thus, the above site of the issue was divided into approximately 2414 and approximately 626 in the same place where the plaintiff et al. owned by the non-party 1, and the plaintiff et al. purchased KRW 500 from the above non-party on May 15, 1964 10, KRW 100,000 for the above 626 house, which was registered under the name of the plaintiff et al., and agreed that the above 1260,000 won, which was the part not actually purchased under the name of the non-party such as the plaintiff et al., al., al., al., al., al.

The plaintiff et al. asserted that the above site of the issue where the house owned by the defendant was constructed belongs to 500 square meters of the land actually purchased as mentioned above, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. According to the evidence Nos. 13, 15, 16, and 17, the above site of the issue belongs to the remaining 126 square meters except for the part of 50 square meters in which the actual sale was made during the above 626 square meters. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s assertion on this point is groundless.

In addition, since the plaintiff et al. purchased the remaining 107 square meters excluding the 19 square meters used as the source of the above non-party from 126 square meters after purchasing 500 square meters as above at November 30 of the same year, the plaintiff et al. alleged that the plaintiff et al. acquired the ownership of the above site at issue, but the corresponding evidence Nos. 2-1, 12-1, 14 and 15-1 of the above evidence Nos. 1, and the testimony of non-party 2 by the non-party 6, 7,8-1, 9, 11-17, and 10-10 of the above 10-6, 100-7, 000 won of the above 10-7,000 won of the above 10-7,000 won of the 50-7,000 won of the above 10-7,000 won of the 10-7,0000 won of the above 7.

According to the contents of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the purport of each of the above evidence, the non-party Nos. 1, 1953, prior to the sale of 500 square meters to the plaintiff et al., the non-party No. 1 sold 72 square meters of the above site to the defendant. Thus, the non-party Nos. 1, 126 square meters of the above part of the purchase and the non-party No. 4's purchase and the non-party No. 126 square meters of the above part of the 126 square meters of the above 126 square meters of the purchase and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 of the above part of the 126 square meters of the plaintiff et al.'s purchase and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 of the above part of the 197.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al. is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the site in question in accordance with the above agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiff et al. shall revoke the removal of the house and the delivery part of the site in the original judgment, which has different opinions from those of the original judgment, and shall dismiss the lawsuit, and the remainder shall be justified, so the appeal shall be dismissed, and the burden of the lawsuit costs (all principal claim and counterclaim) shall be borne by applying Articles 96, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)