1. The objective scope of res judicata;

2. Effect of the registration of transfer of ownership made with farmland transferred for the purpose of securing the obligation;

1. The previous suit seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration to the defendant on behalf of the truster, and the previous suit seeking the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration directly by the defendant on the ground of termination of the trust contract and the execution of the cancellation of the registration by subrogation of the truster on behalf of the defendant on the ground of termination of the trust contract, and the previous suit is different and the res judicata effect of the previous suit does not affect

2. If the acquisition of farmland is made by transfer for the purpose of securing the obligation without any intention to cultivate it, and it is virtually impossible to cultivate it, such acquisition shall be null and void because it violates the mandatory law.

Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 27 and 19 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 71A72)

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1089 Delivered on March 12, 1974

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's preliminary claim is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(A) The plaintiff's representative is the defendant 1, and the defendant 2 is the defendant 1's representative responsible for the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the Chuncheon District Court No. 2486 of May 17, 1971 with respect to the real estate stated in (1), (2) and (3) of the attached Table, and the defendant 1 is the defendant 1, with respect to the real estate stated in (1), (2) and (3) of the attached Table, the registration procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration is implemented against the plaintiff on November 25, 195, respectively. The litigation costs are

(Preliminary Claim) Defendant 1 seeks a decision on June 2, 195 to implement the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate stated in (1), (2) and (3) of the attached Table against Kim Jin, as the receipt of the above registry office on June 2, 1955, and Defendant 2 against the above Nonparty on May 17, 1971 as the receipt of the above registry office No. 2486 on May 17, 1971.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

It is the same as that stated in the claim.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant et al.'s legal representative asserted that the claim of this case is in conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit like this case against the defendant 1 on May 14, 1965, and the judgment of dismissal was finally affirmed. Thus, according to the defendant et al.'s statement No. 1 which does not dispute the establishment of the previous lawsuit, the previous lawsuit asserted against the defendant 1 is in conflict with the defendant 1 on the ground that the previous lawsuit is in conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party 1 on March 20, 195 and purchased the ownership transfer registration on June 2, 195 with the above defendant's name on June 1, 195, the ownership transfer registration on the 3,654, which was entered in the separate sheet against the defendant 1 on the ground that the ownership transfer registration on the non-party 2 purchased the above land on behalf of the defendant on March 20, 1955.

2. Judgment on the merits

On June 2, 1955, as stated in the purport of the claim from Nonparty 1, as to the real estate, the registration of transfer from Nonparty 1 to Defendant 1 on June 2, 195, and the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership was made on May 17, 1971 to Defendant 2 on the real estate in the attached list (1), (2) is not in dispute between

The plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the non-party 1 and sold it to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 1's title on November 25, 195, and sold it to the non-party 3. The above defendant's transfer registration procedure for the non-party 1's title to the non-party 3's trust contract was based on the non-party 1's first sale and the non-party 2's title to the non-party 1's non-party 6's title on the non-party 1's own title to the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1', the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's title 1'.

Thus, Nonparty 2 did not intend to cultivate the farmland of this case, and it is impossible to cultivate it in fact. However, the registration of ownership transfer has been made in title trust with Defendant 1 for a temporary period until it was transferred for the purpose of collateral security, and the acquisition of farmland by Nonparty 2 cannot be deemed null and void as it goes against the main sentence of Article 27 subparag. 1 and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, which is a mandatory law, and the sales contract with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 (the decedent of the Plaintiff) shall also be null and void on the premise that Nonparty 2 acquired the farmland of this case lawfully and effectively.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot directly file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with the defendant on behalf of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 who is the original owner, on the ground that the trust contract between the non-party 2 and the defendant 1 was terminated as mentioned above, and the plaintiff cannot file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer cancellation with the above defendant on behalf of the non-party 1. As to the sales contract between the defendant 2 and the defendant 1, no further determination is required for the plaintiff to file a claim for the registration of ownership

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim (including the main claim and the conjunctive claim) shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89, Article 95 and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the effect that the original judgment (excluding the portion of the preliminary claim) is just and that the plaintiff's appeal against it is without merit.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)

A judge Lee Young-soo shall be unable to sign and seal by transfer.