Legal relations where cancellation is sought on behalf of the other party for the registration of ownership transfer completed by a final judgment.

If the final and conclusive judgment ordering the registration of ownership transfer in Gap's name is a fraudulent judgment, the judgment has no res judicata effect, but if it is not a fraudulent judgment, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to Eul who is the other party to the lawsuit, Byung's right to seek cancellation of the above registration in Eul's name by subrogation of Eul is in conflict with res judicata effect, but the court below erred in admitting Byung's claim without confirming

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1312 Decided August 29, 1967, Decision 75Da634 Decided May 9, 1978

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 80Na118 delivered on October 23, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, while the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party who is its owner and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer made under the name of the defendant for the above non-party's claim against the non-party for the execution of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer as to the (name 2 omitted) large 168 square meters (the land of this case is divided into the address 168 square meters), including the land of this case, in order to obtain the execution of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer from the non-party of Gwangju-si ( Address 1 omitted) in the Dong-gu, Gwangju-si, which was purchased by the defendant from the non-party, although he had not purchased the land of this case from the above non-party.

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1 and No. 1, No. 2, 3, and 4, the land of this case is divided into 168 of Dong-gu, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and the defendant purchased the above large 168 square meters from the non-party who is the owner of the land from the non-party on February 2, 1955, and the non-party filed a lawsuit claiming that the non-party shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale of 168 square meters from February 2, 1955, and the judgment in favor of the defendant was rendered at the Gwangju-si District Court (limited to 66A928). According to the records, the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party on March 15, 194, and thus the non-party asserted that the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of the non-party on the part of the non-party on the part of the non-party on the part of the non-party.

However, as alleged in the plaintiff, if the defendant falsely entered the address of the non-party in the complaint and received it from another person without authority (if the method of service by public notice is not taken, then the judgment is only rendered, and the judgment constitutes a so-called fraudulent judgment without being served with the original copy of the judgment against the non-party, and the judgment shall be deemed to have no res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da634 delivered on May 9, 1978). Thus, the plaintiff may seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant as to the land in this case on behalf of the non-party on behalf of the non-party.

However, if the above 66A928 judgment is not a fraudulent judgment, the final judgment becomes res judicata effect against the above non-party, who is the plaintiff's subrogation. Thus, even if the defendant did not actually purchase the land of this case from the above non-party, the plaintiff's seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case in the name of the defendant on behalf of the above non-party, who is the subrogation, cannot be permitted as it goes against the res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1312 delivered on August 29, 1967). Thus, the court below is not final and conclusive that the above 66A928 judgment was a fraudulent judgment, but can not accept the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, the above judgment without examining and making a decision as to whether it constitutes a judgment of deceit, which cited the plaintiff's claim, shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to unlawful reasoning or res judicata due to incomplete deliberation, and therefore, the argument of appeal pointing this out has merit, and therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be exempted from reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)