1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts in this court is as follows: (a) “Plaintiff B” in the last parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to read “Plaintiff B through Plaintiff B”; (b) “No. 2 of the 4th parallel of the 1984 parallel of the 4th parallel of the 1984 parallel of the 4th parallel of the 3rd parallel of the 4th parallel of the 4th parallel of the 4th parallel of the 1,653 square meters” shall be deemed to read “A, June 5, 1984”; and (c) “No. 1,642 square meters in E, Dec. 1, 198; and (d) the said 11th square meters in E, 1,642 square meters in the 11th parallel of the 11th parallel of the 11st parallel of the 196th parallel of the 1st unit of the judgment,” and shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff A sold to the defendant an amount equivalent to 500 square meters out of the shares of the plaintiff A as to the above F F land, D prior to partition, and C land. If the pertinent land is substituted by the division rearrangement, the plaintiff A agreed on the substitute land equivalent to 500 square meters of the previous land as the quantity of the object of sale. As such, the registration of transfer of shares over 208 square meters from the registration of transfer of shares in the defendant's name as to each land listed in the attached Table 2 was completed without any legal ground, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of registration of cancellation according to

B. Even if the subject-matter of a lawsuit is not the same before and after the judgment, if the subject-matter of a lawsuit is the subject-matter of a lawsuit, if the subject-matter of a lawsuit is the subject-matter of a lawsuit inconsistent with the established legal relations in the previous lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit is not effective in the subsequent lawsuit. Therefore, even though the judgment in the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive to order the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on provisional registration, if a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration is filed in the subsequent lawsuit, it constitutes a case where the claim for ownership transfer

Supreme Court Decision 93Da5248 delivered on March 24, 1995