[1] The subject matter of the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration

[2] Whether res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment in a lawsuit seeking ownership transfer registration based on sale extends to the existence of a right to claim ownership transfer registration based on an agreement (negative)

[1] Where a cause for registration differs in a claim for ownership transfer registration, it is not merely a difference in the method of offence and defense, but it is recognized as a separate subject matter of lawsuit by cause for registration.

[2] It is clear that an agreement that was made to transfer the ownership registration for the management of the real estate upon delegation of affairs concerning the disposal of the real estate is different from the sale, and since the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership and the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership based on the sale are separate objects of lawsuit, even though the recognition protocol recognizing the claim for the transfer registration of ownership due to sale is revoked in quasi-adjudication and the judgment dismissing such claim becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata effect cannot be deemed to affect the existence of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership due to the above agreement.

[1] Articles 202 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 202 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da8961 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1487)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Young-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 32 others, the deceased Nonparty 1’s taking over the lawsuit

Defendant 1 and six others (Defendant-Supplementary Intervenor and Defendant-Supplementary Intervenor et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na4733 delivered on September 9, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and supplemental appellate brief are also examined as supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief not timely filed.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above real estate was owned by the deceased non-party 2 on April 20, 197, each of the above real estate under the name of the above non-party 1's judgment and the defendant 1 (the plaintiff, etc. was deceased on April 1, 1993 and the non-party 6 and the deceased non-party 7 (the plaintiff, etc.) did not jointly inherit the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1's owner of the above real estate under the name of the non-party 8's transfer registration. The court below rejected the above non-party 1's request for the above real estate transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1's owner of the above real estate and ordered the non-party 1 to dismiss the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1's owner and the non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's legal representative.

2. In light of the records, although some parts of the court below's fact-finding are simply abstract or unnecessary as shown in the ground of appeal, the decision that the registration of ownership transfer conforms to the substantive relationship with the real estate of this case based on the fact-finding and the fact-finding as to the circumstances for which the registration of ownership transfer under the deceased non-party 1 was completed on the real estate of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or in the incomplete deliberation, the lack of reasons, or the failure of reasons. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

3. In the case of a claim for ownership transfer registration, if the cause of registration differs, it is not merely a difference in the method of offence and defense, but it is recognized as a separate subject matter of lawsuit by the cause of registration (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da8961 delivered on April 26, 191).

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff et al. agreed to the deceased non-party 1 at the time when the plaintiffs entrusted the sale of the real estate of this case to the deceased non-party 1 to acquire the ownership transfer registration for the purpose of managing the entrusted affairs. Thus, the above agreement is clearly different from the sale and purchase, and the right to claim the ownership transfer registration based on the above agreement and the right to claim the ownership transfer registration based on the sale are separate objects of lawsuit. Thus, even though the above quasi-examination procedure is revoked, and the judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that the res judicata effect affects the existence of the right to claim the ownership transfer registration due to the above agreement.

Therefore, Nonparty 1’s assistant intervenor’s registration of transfer of ownership in Nonparty 1, which was completed with respect to the instant real estate in the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in this case, was conducted in accordance with an agreement to transfer the ownership transfer registration to Nonparty 1 for the handling of affairs delegated by the Plaintiffs, and thus, the assertion that it is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship is not in conflict with the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the above quasi-adjudication suit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the above non-party 1 on the real estate of this case is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship is just and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to res judicata or the right to claim ownership transfer registration as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)